Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: The House will wish to know that Nigel Evans has formally resigned as Deputy Speaker, and I have received his letter of resignation with sadness. I wish to thank Nigel for his three years of service to the House as Deputy Speaker, in which he has proved to be highly competent, fair and good humoured. He has been a loyal and valued member of the team of Deputy Speakers who assist me in chairing our proceedings. I am warmly grateful to him. I will make an announcement about arrangements for the election by the House of a new First Deputy Chairman of Ways of Means when the House returns in October.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Scotland Analysis Programme

Graeme Morrice: When the Government plan to publish the next paper of their Scotland analysis programme.

Michael Moore: The Government are committed to ensuring a well-informed debate ahead of the Scottish referendum and have already published five analytical documents covering a range of economic and other issues. Future papers from the Scotland analysis programme will be published over the course of 2013 and 2014.

Graeme Morrice: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. With the Scottish Finance Minister, John Swinney, admitting in his leaked memo that the affordability of state pensions would need to be examined in the light of separation, does the Secretary of State agree that a future paper should focus on pensions in an independent Scotland?

Michael Moore: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that pensions are an issue that people across the country are very engaged in and concerned about, and that includes what an independent Scotland might mean for them. They have heard experts, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland—I declare an interest
	as a member—put out their opinion, but nothing is more certain than John Swinney’s opinion. The fact that he has said that there is a worry about this should tell us everything we need to know about the pensions issue.

Jimmy Hood: Does the Secretary of State plan to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on making Government time available for the House to discuss the reports and analysis? If he cannot get the time, may I suggest that he allows the Scottish Grand Committee to have those debates?

Michael Moore: Without being impertinent to the hon. Gentleman, the old ones are the best. I know how keen he has been on the Scottish Grand Committee, although I think that he is a fairly lone voice in that regard. I agree that it is important that we have proper debates, in whatever forum, about all the issues. The Scottish Affairs Committee is working through the papers and taking evidence from me, my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and others. The House can decide when we get a chance to debate that, which I hope we will.

Angus Robertson: Whitehall’s “Project Fear” papers are looking at welfare, so will the Secretary of State confirm whether those working on the paper have listened to any advice from the United Nations envoy, Raquel Rolnik? She says that the bedroom tax is “shocking” and should be scrapped. Does the Secretary of State believe that the bedroom tax is a benefit of the Union?

Michael Moore: I have not read the details of the report, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, through welfare reform, we are focused on tackling an escalating welfare bill in very tight financial circumstances. What we are trying to do is tackle the mismatch for different families in different accommodation. We need to look carefully at the implementation, which is what my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are doing. On welfare, the hon. Gentleman’s party commissioned a report on that earlier this year in relation to an independent Scotland. It complained that it does not have some founding principles for an independent Scotland and so could not really say very much about it. I wonder whether he can update us on any progress.

Angus Robertson: The views of the UN envoy have been very well reported. She visited both Glasgow and Edinburgh and said that the bedroom tax affects
	“the most vulnerable, the most fragile, the people who are on the fringes of coping with everyday life”.
	The Secretary of State did not answer my question, so I will ask it a second time: does he believe that the bedroom tax is a benefit of the Union—yes or no?

Michael Moore: We will look carefully at the report, but as I said earlier, we are making some very difficult decisions in the context of an escalating welfare bill at a time of real financial stringency. However, we have been looking carefully across Scotland at how this is being implemented. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have met or talked with all the councils in Scotland and the main housing associations. We have put additional
	resources into tackling the spare room subsidy issue and will go across the country again to listen to people, as we will do for the rest of the year.

Rural Economy

Alan Reid: What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the rural economy in Scotland.

Michael Moore: Scotland’s rural economy remains a key focus for the Government. In addition to our support for the economy as a whole, we have, among other things, abolished the fuel duty escalator, provided funds for rural broadband and set up the coastal communities fund.

Alan Reid: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Many of my constituents are expressing concern that a privatised Royal Mail will try to wriggle out of its universal service obligation to deliver mail to every house and collect from every postbox in the country every day at a fair, affordable price. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents that the Government will never abandon the universal service obligation or allow a privatised Royal Mail to water it down in any way?

Michael Moore: The legislation is clear. We have legislated for a six-day universal service obligation and only an affirmative resolution of the House could change that. I highlight to my hon. Friend the fact that the Government have ended the rural post office closure programme. We have introduced a groceries code adjudicator and cut income tax bills for low and middle-income families throughout rural Scotland and the rest of the country. No Government have ever done more for the rural economy in Scotland. We are committed to a stronger economy and fairer society in all parts of the UK.

Sandra Osborne: The Minister of State is well aware that rural east Ayrshire has been devastated, with hundreds of job losses and up to £160 million of restoration work required in respect of the open-cast mines. Only this week, a Scottish Government Minister said that he was not prepared to prioritise funding for the issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that funding will be required for the work and that the Scottish Government have to put their money where their mouth is? Furthermore, do we not need some form of enterprise area for east Ayrshire, to compensate for this national devastation?

Michael Moore: I sympathise with the hon. Lady and her constituents about the devastating blow for her and other hon. Members, including the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), some of whose constituents are affected. He will meet representatives of East Ayrshire council later this week. We have to make sure that, when levers are available to the Scottish Government, they use them to help the hon. Lady’s constituents and others.

Guy Opperman: What would be the impact on the rural economy of my neighbours in southern Scotland if Scotland went independent and we had a border with Scotland?

Michael Moore: As one of my hon. Friend’s neighbouring MPs, I recognise the importance of Hexham and north Northumberland. As he knows, in a farming context and in so many other ways, any kind of legal border between Scotland and England would be an absolute disaster—not just for our constituents, but for all the United Kingdom.

Michael Weir: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent report on the effect of the Irish Government’s reduction of VAT on tourism-related businesses to 9%, creating around 10,000 jobs and a €40 million boost to the Exchequer? As 24 other EU countries already charge less VAT on hotel accommodation than the UK, will he press the Chancellor to take similar action and give a real boost to the rural economy?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman always makes serious points on behalf of his constituents. I appreciate that what he has asked about is a consistent theme of the tourism sector, and the Chancellor will no doubt regard it as an early bid for next year’s Budget measures. However, the hon. Gentleman would be more convincing if he brought along a costed example of how an independent Scotland would do such a thing.

John Thurso: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a major contributor to the rural economy is the ability to send goods around the country. In the north highlands, sending packages by courier services comes at extreme cost; the companies charge more than for the rest of the mainland. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) will present his excellent private Member’s Bill on Friday. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that courier charges for remote areas are in line with those for the rest of the mainland?

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) have been campaigning sensibly on the issue and raising important points. We certainly want to engage with my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine on his private Member’s Bill, which addresses a serious issue. We support the principles that underpin the Bill and want to see how we can use existing arrangements, through trading standards and other facilities, to make sure that nobody in remote or rural areas suffers from those excess delivery charges.

Russell Brown: The average wage in my local authority area is 24% beneath the national average. Figures out this week show that 23.8% of households there are workless, almost 3% above the Scottish average. Does the Secretary of State believe that the Government, perhaps in conjunction with the Scottish Government, should be doing much more for rural economies?

Michael Moore: I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that these are structural problems that have persisted for a very long time, including when his party’s Government were in power. I share his desire to ensure that low-wage economies, particularly in rural areas, get the support they need. The very heart of our economic policy is to
	rebalance the country as a whole and move from the rescue to recovery phase. As we do that, the measures we are taking to support the economy as a whole by keeping interest rates and corporation tax down and investing in infrastructure will help rural and urban Scotland alike.

Independence (Currency)

Anas Sarwar: What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues and Ministers of the Scottish Government on the continued use of sterling in a separate Scotland.

Michael Moore: Earlier this year, as part of the Scotland analysis programme, we published a paper on currency issues that makes the strong case for Scotland staying in the United Kingdom. There have been no discussions with the Scottish Government about the use of sterling by an independent Scotland.

Anas Sarwar: Does the Secretary of State recognise the democratic deficit that is on offer whereby under nationalist plans Scotland would keep the pound but the rest of the UK would still set our interest rates, our borrowing limits and our spending limits, while at the same time we would lose our influence and our representation? Does he agree that that is not more or less independence, but worse independence?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman puts the points very neatly. People do not need to rely on his words or mine; they can listen to experts such as the Cuthberts, who said this week that they would like an independent Scotland to have its own currency and that to stay part of a currency union is no independence. Similarly, Brian Quinn, the highly respected former deputy governor of the Bank of England, observed in his recent report that the idea of a currency union is to replicate all the problems of the eurozone. The nationalists fail to answer all the points from both sides of the argument.

Iain Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that should a separate Scotland become a member state of the EU, a condition of membership will be an obligation to join the euro, with the further risk that that would expose Scotland to being part of a future bail-out of eurozone members? [Interruption.]

Michael Moore: Notwithstanding the heckling from the nationalist Benches, which hides the fact that they do not have answers to these very important questions, the point is that they used to be in favour of the euro but now they have back-tracked; they used to be in favour of a separate currency but now they have back-tracked; and they are currently saying that a currency union would be the best starting point. I think Scotland deserves to know what the end point would be.

Gordon Banks: On sterling, Alex Salmond says he is in and the chair of the yes campaign says he is out; it is a bit like the currency hokey cokey. The serious point is that this morning a report says that if the UK had a formal currency union with an independent Scotland, in the
	event of another financial crisis London would provide the lender-of-last-resort functions, whereas if Scotland were in the euro it would be Brussels, and if Scotland had its own currency it would probably be the International Monetary Fund in Washington. Is it not true that in the event of separation all roads lead to Scotland having less control over its own financial affairs?

Michael Moore: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The best arrangement for Scotland is to stay part of the United Kingdom, where we get all the benefits of the currency but also the hugely integrated single market, which is enormously to our benefit, and a platform in the world that is great for all our businesses and those they employ.

Stewart Hosie: The Scottish Secretary prayed in aid one of the Treasury’s analysis documents on Scotland in relation to currency. However, given that his own Chancellor is unable to get his economic growth forecasts correct six months to a year out, how can he possibly expect us to believe an analysis that is supposed to forecast the Scottish growth rate for the next 30 years? It is not serious, is it? It is just more “Project Fear” scaremongering designed to talk Scotland down.

Michael Moore: I have to admire the front that the hon. Gentleman puts up. He simply does not answer any of the big issues on this. To take an example of forecasting, in our documents we take very sensible, reasonable proposals and look at how they would apply over many years to come—unlike when the Scottish National party forecasts oil revenues, when it takes all the best-case scenarios and then makes up numbers indicating that about £1.5 trillion of resources are available to Scotland. It is more like a tenth of that, but we never hear that from him.

Zero-hours Contracts

Gregg McClymont: What estimate he has made of the number of people employed on zero-hours contracts in Scotland.

Jim McGovern: What discussions he has had with Ministers of the Scottish Government on the use of zero-hours contracts in Scotland.

David Mundell: There is no single legal definition of zero-hours contracts and it is not possible to get reliable estimates. The issue was discussed at the Scottish employability forum last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth and a range of Scottish stakeholders.

Gregg McClymont: Many employers in Scotland insist that employees on zero-hours contracts be available for work even if work is not guaranteed. The Labour party has pledged to outlaw this practice and the Scottish Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West
	(Mr Davidson), has initiated an inquiry. When will this Minister and this Government put themselves on the side of working people?

David Mundell: It is important that our work force remain flexible, but it is also important that they are treated fairly. That is why officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have undertaken work over the summer to better understand how the contract works in practice, with a view to taking action if widespread abuse is found.

Jim McGovern: In June, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Government published, following an analysis, a report saying that more than 250,000 people in Scotland are underemployed. Many of them are on zero-hours contracts and the overwhelming majority of them do not want to be. What are the Government doing to address this scandal? As an afterthought, perhaps the Minister could tell us how many people in his Department are on zero-hours contracts.

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Scotland Office does not directly employ any members of the Department, as I have already confirmed in response to a parliamentary question about zero-hours contracts. As I have just indicated to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), we take this issue seriously. That is why BIS officials have been reviewing the operation of the contracts, and I very much welcome the Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry, which will perhaps provide greater illumination on the specific situation in Scotland.

Michael Crockart: Zero-hours contracts are undoubtedly misused and abused by many employers but, equally, I have spoken to many employees for whom the contracts fit their lifestyle well. Does my right hon. Friend agree, therefore, that reform is necessary, not abolition, and that nothing shows this better than the number of Labour councils using these contracts?

David Mundell: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of the statement by Labour’s shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), who said:
	“We’re not actually advocating an entire ban…sometimes people quite like to use them.”
	I think that that is something with which we can all agree.

Margaret Curran: If I may, I would like to express my condolences and pay tribute to those who lost their lives in the terrible Super Puma crash that happened while the House was in recess.
	Until recently, Kyle McLean from Airdrie worked in a sports store. Like thousands of people across Scotland, his zero-hours contract meant that he could not take on other work and some weeks he earned less than £20. What does the Minister plan to do about the exploitative use of zero-hours contracts?

David Mundell: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the Super Puma crash and pay tribute to those who were involved in it.
	The hon. Lady has a blind spot when it comes to understanding what her own Government did. She seems to suggest that zero-hours contracts suddenly materialised recently, but they were in existence under the Labour Government, who took no steps to review or do anything about them. I explained in my previous answer that BIS officials are reviewing the contracts, because while we want the employment market to be flexible we also want it to be fair.

Margaret Curran: Perhaps if the Minister looked at Labour’s policies he would get some ideas. The truth is that while the Government have sold off workers’ rights and made it easier to fire rather than hire, they have no plan to address the circumstances of people such as Kyle. Will the Minister follow Labour’s lead and outlaw the use of exploitative zero-hours contracts? Will he also confirm that the Secretary of State for Scotland is on a zero-hours contract so that he can do the Tories’ dirty work in Scotland?

David Mundell: There is one person in this Chamber who is on a zero-hours contract: the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). I will take no lessons from the hon. Lady, because Labour did nothing about zero-hours contracts. I have set out clearly that BIS officials are reviewing the matter, because our policy is to have a flexible work force and fair employment policies.

Independence (Pensions)

Ian Murray: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on pensions of Scottish independence.

David Mundell: The “Scotland analysis: Financial services and banking” paper considered private sector pensions. We will be examining state and public pensions in later papers in the series.

Ian Murray: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland highlighted that, on independence, cross-border defined benefit pension schemes would have to be fully funded, which would leave a deficit of some £230 billion. That was dismissed by the First Minister, who said that he would merely call for a derogation from the EU. Given that the Czech Republic has not only been refused that, but has been fined, what does the Minister think will happen to Scottish pension arrangements now and in the future?

David Mundell: Spending on state pensions and public sector pensions is driven by demographics and is set to rise. The UK Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions absorb the risk of growth in demand and there would be more volatility in spending in an independent Scotland. Those are not my words, but the words of John Swinney. It is a pity that he said them in private, not in public.

Eleanor Laing: Does the Minister agree that the ability of the Scottish economy to support the pensions that the people of Scotland depend on will be greater and better if Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom?

David Mundell: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, not least because the Scottish Government and the Scottish National party have set out no coherent plans for a sustainable pensions system in an independent Scotland.

Eilidh Whiteford: The Minister must think that people in Scotland are buttoned up the back. He knows as well as I do that in terms of both revenue and GDP, Scotland spends a lower percentage of its money on pensions than other parts of the UK. Does he accept that the lower life expectancy in Scotland and other demographic trends make it important that decisions on pensions are made in Scotland by Scotland for Scotland?

David Mundell: I know that the people of Scotland are not buttoned up the back. They understand that the Scottish Government and the SNP say one thing in private and another thing in public. In private, John Swinney has made it absolutely clear that the affordability of pensions would be a serious issue in an independent Scotland. That is a fact. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Far too many noisy private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. I am sure that they will now end so that we can hear Mary Macleod.

Oil and Gas Industry

Mary Macleod: What steps the Government are taking to protect workers in the oil and gas industry in Scotland.

Michael Moore: As the shadow Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland acknowledged a few moments ago, the whole House will want to pay tribute to those who lost their lives in the tragic helicopter incident in the North sea and to the vital work of the rescue services. That is a reminder of the risks that are faced by those who work in the oil and gas industry, and, indeed, of their bravery. The Government remain committed to working with the industry to ensure the highest levels of health and safety for all its workers.

Mary Macleod: Does my right hon. Friend agree that work force engagement is crucial in restoring the confidence of offshore workers in light of the recent helicopter crash off the coast of Shetland, which resulted in the deaths of four offshore workers?

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The industry has been quick to engage with all the stakeholders and, most importantly, with the work force. The Government will engage with all partners to ensure that the lessons of this tragic accident are learned properly.

Tom Greatrex: I hope that the Secretary of State is aware of the agreement that has been reached between the offshore unions and Oil and Gas UK to ensure that offshore work force representatives have more access to installations. Will he join me in welcoming that example of the progressive and positive
	way in which the unions are helping to ensure that health and safety measures are enhanced in the North sea?

Michael Moore: Trade unions, employers and everybody else who is involved in the North sea have worked closely over many decades. Recently, as we commemorated the tragedy of Piper Alpha 25 years on, we were reminded of the importance of having the right health and safety regime. The trade unions, along with everybody else, have an important part to play in ensuring that we always have the right regime.

Robert Smith: The tragedy with the Super Puma helicopter was a reminder that, for all the heavy engineering and high-tech industry in the North sea, it is, at heart, a people business. The families and friends of the victims and of those who travel offshore every week need to be reassured that all is being done to ensure their safety. To that end, will my right hon. Friend meet the air accidents investigation branch to see what can be done to ensure that the lessons are learned from such tragedies quickly, so that people can be reassured that all is being done to ensure the safety of the operation?

Michael Moore: Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, my hon. Friend has for many years campaigned on North sea safety issues. Like our predecessors, this Government are committed to the highest possible standards. Of course, we want to see what lessons are learned from the tragedy, and ensure that they are shared with the whole industry, across the whole North sea and beyond.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Annette Brooke: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 September.

David Cameron: Today marks the 12th anniversary of the tragic terrorist attack on New York’s twin towers. I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending our condolences to all those who were affected by that abhorrent attack, including the families of the 67 British citizens who lost their lives. These terrorists seek to divide us, but they do not understand that their actions only make us more determined and more united in our resolve to defeat them.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and, in addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Annette Brooke: I am sure all Members in the House will wish to associate themselves with the Prime Minister’s comments on this anniversary.
	We are haunted by images from Syria—millions of people needing aid; children dying. I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership on humanitarian access at the G20. Will he now prepare a concrete plan? What
	steps will he take to gain international support prior to the United Nations General Assembly later this month?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue. A Syrian becomes a refugee every 15 seconds; inside Syria, 6.8 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance; and the UN appeal is only 44% subscribed—there is a serious shortage of money. We have a plan between now and the UN General Assembly to encourage other countries to come forward with money, as we have done, and to back up Valerie Amos in her campaign to ensure proper access, which means including priority humanitarian routes into the country, cutting bureaucracy, and having humanitarian pauses in the conflict so the aid can get through. She will have our backing in getting others to support that, including—potentially—in a UN Security Council resolution.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in remembering the terrible events of 11 September 2001, and especially all the British citizens who died on that day. The mindless cruelty of that attack must never be forgotten. Today, our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who died.
	Today’s fall in unemployment is welcome—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”]—but does the Prime Minister recognise the concern that unemployment is still rising among young people and is close to 1 million, and that the number of people who are working part time but who cannot find a full-time job is at record levels?

David Cameron: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about this anniversary of those dreadful events in New York. I also thank him for welcoming the fall in unemployment. Let me say clearly that of course it is welcome when unemployment falls, but we still have a long way to go. As the Chancellor said, we are turning a corner, but we need to build this recovery. We must go on backing businesses and dealing with our debts—there must be absolutely no complacency as we do everything we can to ensure the recovery delivers for hard-working people.
	Let me share the unemployment figures with the right hon. Gentleman and for the House’s benefit. It is good that employment is up another 80,000 this quarter; that unemployment is down 24,000; and that the claimant count is down 32,000 just this month. Unemployment is now lower than it was at the general election, and the number of new net private sector jobs, which we have said was 1.3 million, is now 1.4 million, which is very welcome.
	The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise youth unemployment; we do need to do more to get young people back to work. The youth claimant count is down by 10,900 this month, so there is some good news, but we need to build on our work on apprenticeships and work experience, ensure that the youth contract delivers and that children are learning the key skills at school, and help to get those young people into work.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister mentioned the Chancellor’s speech on Monday. The Chancellor went out and said that he had saved the economy—total complacency and total hubris at a time when, even
	today, unemployment is rising in half of the country: in the east of England, the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humber, the west midlands and Scotland. It was the Chancellor who choked off the recovery and he now wants somehow to claim credit for it. People’s living standards continue to fall. Will the Prime Minister confirm that wages are now around £1,500 lower than when he came to power?

David Cameron: Let me just remind the right hon. Gentleman what the Chancellor said, which I think is perfectly legitimate. He pointed out that the Opposition told us that there would be no growth without plan B. Well, we have growth. They told us that unemployment would go up, not down. They told us that growth of private sector jobs would never make up for the loss of public sector jobs. They have been wrong on every single one of those issues. Of course we need to do more to help with living standards, but the only way to help with living standards sustainably is to deliver growth in the economy, and we are; to keep interest rates and mortgage rates low, and we are; and to cut people’s taxes by raising the personal allowance. All the things this Government have done; things his Government would never do.

Edward Miliband: Once again we see from the Prime Minister, as we did from the Chancellor, total complacency. We are in the midst of the slowest recovery in 100 years. Let us talk about the Prime Minister’s record. Can he tell us in how many of the 39 months that he has been Prime Minister have prices been rising faster than wages and living standards falling?

David Cameron: I said we face a challenge to help people with living standards, but because this Government have taken 2 million people out of tax and have cut income tax for 25 million working people, household disposable income went up last year—that is what is happening. As I said right at the beginning, we have to build on this; we have got to keep going with dealing with the deficit and helping business to employ people.
	The right hon. Gentleman talks about policy. Let me just remind him what the former Chancellor said:
	“I’m waiting to hear what we’ve got to say on the economy”.
	That is the verdict of the former Chancellor. I have to say that we are all waiting to hear a single, constructive suggestion from the Labour party.

Edward Miliband: The whole House and the country will have heard the Prime Minister unable to answer the question about what is happening to living standards. Let me give him the answer: for 38 out of the 39 months he has been Prime Minister, living standards for working people have gone down, not up. Will he confirm that the only month when wages rose faster than prices was when he handed out the millionaires’ tax cut and City bonuses went up—

David Cameron: rose—

Edward Miliband: Calm down; hang on a second. And when City bonuses went up 82%?

David Cameron: His speeches are so poor, as we saw yesterday, that it is difficult to know when he is finished. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Calm down. It will just take longer otherwise. It is very simple.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman went to Bournemouth and completely bottled it—that is the truth. The fact is that in this economy business confidence is up, consumer confidence is up and exports are up. The point I would make about bonuses is that when he was sitting in the Treasury they were four times higher. Under this Government, the top rate of tax will be higher than in any year when he or the shadow Chancellor sat and advised the last, disastrous Labour Government. That is the truth of it. This Government are making good the mess that he made in government.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister cannot answer the question on living standards, because he knows that the truth is that people are worse off under this Government. Here is the reality: the Government want to give maximum support to millionaires who are getting bonuses, so they give them a tax cut, but it is a different story for those who go to food banks. We know what the Government think about those who go to food banks, because the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said that the people who go to food banks only have themselves to blame. [Interruption.] A Government Member groans—that just shows how out of touch this Conservative party are. We would all like to hear: does the Prime Minister agree with his Education Secretary?

David Cameron: Food bank use went up 10 times under Labour, so we do not have to take any lectures from the Opposition. While we are on the issue of complacency, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman: real complacency is going back to tax and spend and borrowing through the roof. Real complacency is promising no more boom and bust. Real complacency is thinking you can win an election, when we have learned this week that Labour has no economic policy, no foreign policy and no leadership, either. He promised us a blank sheet of paper; three years in, I think we can agree he has delivered.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister neither defended the Education Secretary’s comments nor distanced himself from them. Let me just tell him: the Education Secretary is an absolute disgrace. Let us see any of those on the Conservative Benches try to live on £150 a week; then we would see what happens. We have 1 million young people out of work, unemployment up in half the country and millions of people worse off while millionaires get a tax cut. For the few, not the many—he is the two-nation Prime Minister.

David Cameron: It is this Education Secretary who is delivering the results we need in our education system—free schools, academies and rigour in our schools—and the right hon. Gentleman should be praising him. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what is a disgrace, and that is going down to Bournemouth and caving in to the trade unions. We were promised this great big, tough fight and great big, tough speech. He told us it was going to be “Raging Bull”; he gave us “Chicken Run”.

Martin Vickers: My right hon. Friend and the Government have been working hard to attract inward investment into northern Lincolnshire and the Humber region, with considerable success, but these efforts could be undermined by further delays to determine the application by Able UK. May I urge the Prime Minister to respond to requests from the leader of North Lincolnshire council and the Humber local enterprise partnership to intervene to ensure an early determination of the application, well before the December deadline?

David Cameron: I have spoken to my hon. Friend and his Humberside colleagues on a number of occasions about this very important investment. We all want to see the Humber estuary become a real magnet for investment, particularly green energy investment, so I am very happy to look at the issue that he has raised with me—he has raised it with me before—and particularly at the planning permission, with, of course, the responsible council.

Helen Goodman: The parents of the 1 million young unemployed people will think the Prime Minister is totally out of touch. This year, the number of young people with jobs has dropped by 77,000, and the Government’s Youth Contract has reached fewer than one tenth of the young people it was supposed to help. Does the Prime Minister not understand that not everybody lands their first job with help from a royal equerry?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady should welcome the fact that the number of young people who are claiming out-of-work benefits has fallen by 10,900 this month. That is what is happening—100,000 young people accessing work experience, many of them getting into work. It is 20 times more cost-effective than the future jobs fund, which she supported. That is what is happening under our economy, but, as I said, there is absolutely no complacency: more needs to be done to get young people into work.

Nadine Dorries: Last week, despite having enough evidence to prosecute, the Crown Prosecution Service chose not to proceed and prosecute doctors in Britain offering to abort a baby because it was a female. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is very uncomfortable, that the Abortion Act 1967 is now almost obsolete and puts our abortion policy on a par with those of India and China, and that a female foetus in the womb today is more vulnerable than she was last week?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. Let us be clear that abortions on the basis of a child’s sex are wrong and illegal in our country. The Daily Telegraph is to be commended for the campaign and the work it has done to highlight this important case, but in our country we have independent prosecuting authorities. It is very important that they look at the evidence and make a decision on the basis of the likelihood of getting a conviction and the public interest in taking a case to court. That is how things have to work in our country, but I share her concern about what we have read and what has happened, and it is absolutely right that professional action should be considered as well.

Albert Owen: On Sunday, I joined Army veterans on the Anglesey leg of the Walk on Wales, an 870-mile tour of Wales organised by the charity, Walk on Wales, to raise awareness of their comrades suffering from mental illness. Great progress has been made over the past 10 years, but will the Prime Minister assure the House that he is redoubling his efforts to ensure that the NHS has access to Army records so that it can give the best possible service and treatment to our brave comrades? Will he also join me in congratulating and wishing every success to Walk on Wales?

David Cameron: I certainly congratulate Walk on Wales on its work, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for his efforts in his constituency, which is a beautiful one to walk around. It is important that we put money into veterans charities—as we are doing, using the LIBOR funds—to support many causes including mental health causes, but, as he says, it is also important to ensure that the national health service responds properly to these demands. I will look into his point about Army records and perhaps write to him about that specific issue.

Gordon Birtwistle: After years of decline, manufacturing is now leading this country out of the financial mess left by the previous Government. May I compliment my right hon. Friend on his decision not to implement plan B, as suggested by the Opposition, and ask him to continue to support our outstanding manufacturing businesses, particularly those in my constituency and across the north-west in general?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the news on manufacturing is good. All 13 of the manufacturing sectors have increased—the first time that has happened since 1992. Of course, the Labour party does not like hearing that good news, including the great announcement this week that Jaguar Land Rover is creating 1,700 new jobs. We must go on backing British business, backing exports and backing manufacturing to ensure that we make this a sustainable recovery that works for hard-working people.

Gloria De Piero: Is the Prime Minister embarrassed that, while so many people struggle, City bonuses are up £700 million this year?

David Cameron: As I have said, City bonuses are actually 86% lower than they were when the hon. Lady was supporting the last Government. She tweeted this morning—I follow these things very closely, as you know, Mr Speaker—that she had a question to the Prime Minister, and she asked for suggestions. The first suggestion came back:
	“How happy are you that Ed Miliband will be the leader of the Labour Party at the next election?”
	I cannot think why she rejected that advice and took advice from the shadow Chancellor instead.

Amber Rudd: Unemployment in my constituency has fallen for six months running. Today, we have learned that under this Government three times as many jobs have been
	created in the private sector as have been lost in the public sector. Does the Prime Minister believe that that is a “complete fantasy”, as has been suggested by the shadow Chancellor?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have seen the growth of private sector jobs far outstripping the decline in public sector jobs, by more than three times in some cases. The Opposition said that it was a fantasy to suggest that that could happen. They also said that there could be no growth without a plan B, and they predicted rises in unemployment. They have been wrong on every major economic judgment.

Gavin Shuker: I also asked my constituents what I should ask the Prime Minister today. Far away from the knockabout of this session, many people are concerned about wages and prices. Is it not the case that, under this Prime Minister, when prices outstrip wages, working people are poorer than they were when this Government came into office?

David Cameron: When prices outstrip wages, it is really important to cut people’s taxes, and that is what we have done by delivering a tax cut to 25 million working people, lifting the personal allowance and giving people a £700 tax cut. We have been able to do that only because we have taken tough decisions on spending, tough decisions on welfare and tough decisions on the deficit—tough decisions that the Leader of the Opposition has wrongly rejected.

Gavin Barwell: When the Labour party left government, 770 young people in my constituency were out of work. Today, there are just 585, and we now have Westfield and Hammerson proposing to invest £1.5 billion to transform our town centre and create thousands of jobs. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how the Government can help with the infrastructure improvements that will end the scourge of youth unemployment in our town that we inherited from the last Government?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we still have more work to do to get young people into work. Overall, however, 1.4 million more people are now employed in the private sector and we have a historic, record level of women in employment, and the number of people in work is almost up by 1 million since the election, with unemployment lower than at the election and long-term unemployment down on a year ago. We still have more work to do, but we are heading in the right direction. We have to keep on track and keep working to help business to take people on.

Tom Clarke: Will the Prime Minister tell us why people with mental illnesses are being kept in police cells?

David Cameron: We are making efforts to try to bring that to an end through better working between the NHS and the police. This has been a long-standing problem under Governments of all colours for a very long time, but we are having those discussions to try to make good progress.

Henry Smith: In May 2010, youth unemployment in Crawley stood at 7.4%; it stands now at 3.8%. On 27 September, I am holding a jobs fair in Crawley. Does the Prime Minister think that such events could be put on by all right hon. and hon. Members to help us further to turn the corner?

David Cameron: I congratulate businesses in Crawley and my hon. Friend on helping to encourage this private sector-led recovery, which is seeing more people into work. We are also seeing the number of young not in education, employment or training people at its lowest for a decade. As I said, there is absolutely no complacency, when more work needs to be done to make sure that this recovery delivers for people who work hard and do the right thing.

Kerry McCarthy: In April last year, I asked the Prime Minister about the thousands of people visiting food banks, and his reply then suggested a shocking complacency. His reply to the Leader of the Opposition today suggests that he has learned nothing since. Will he answer the question: does he think that the half a million people visiting food banks today simply need to manage their finances better, or will he admit that they cannot afford to feed their families because of his Government?

David Cameron: We should work with and thank the food bank movement for the excellent work it does, and we should recognise that the use of food banks went up 10 times under Labour. One of the reasons it has increased under this Government is that we took away the block that the hon. Lady’s party put in place, which was preventing jobcentres from referring people to food banks. Labour did not do it because it was bad PR, but this Government are interested in doing the right thing rather than something that just looks good.

Richard Fuller: Are national standards for sales and marketing practices in this country strong enough to protect against false advertising? Yesterday, a man in Bournemouth apparently advertised himself as made of steel, only to collapse entirely within seconds!

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I admire everything that happens in Dorset, but I think it needs to look at its trading standards. I have to say that this man folded faster than a Bournemouth deckchair.

Karl Turner: The Chancellor blames the eurozone crisis for problems in the UK economy. Since 2010, however, real wages in France and Germany have risen, when they have fallen in Britain. Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility for the living standards crisis that families in this country are facing?

David Cameron: As I have said many times, times are tough because we are recovering from the calamitous situation left by the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make comparison with eurozone countries, he will see that we have a much lower unemployment rate than many of them. There are no other European countries that can boast a record of 1.4 million new
	private sector jobs. The best way to help people’s living standards and the best way to help them out of poverty is to help them into work. I would have thought that the Labour party understood that.

Pauline Latham: On Monday, the TUC voted in favour of co-ordinated strike action this autumn. What effect does the Prime Minister think that that would have on our economy and on the lives of hard-working people?

David Cameron: I think that the document produced by the Unite union, which still sponsors and basically controls so many Labour Members, is a very frightening document. It is trade union leaders, not ordinary trade unionists, who are doing this. It is trade union leaders who want to damage our country and our economy, and who are playing politics with our future.

Stella Creasy: Tyrell Matthews-Burton was a bright 19-year-old from Walthamstow who had everything to live for. His only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet two months after his brutal murder in Crete, the only contact that the Greek authorities have had with his family has been their posting home of the clothes that he was wearing that night. Will the Prime Minister meet me, and his grieving mother, to see how we can get justice for Tyrell?

David Cameron: I shall be very happy to hold that meeting. I think it is really important for us to do everything we can to help families who are put in such a position. To be fair to our consular services around the world, I think that they cope extremely well. They try to go the extra mile. They work very hard, and I know that the Foreign Office encourages them in all that they do. However, there are cases in which things do not work out in the way they should, and we struggle to get answers from other countries about their justice systems and what is happening.

Brooks Newmark: Tragically, John Ray infant school, one of the largest infant schools in Braintree, burnt down a few days ago. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Essex county council for the speed with which it found alternative accommodation for the children, and in welcoming the encouraging news that the school is to be rebuilt as soon as possible?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in praising his county council. That does sound like a tragic event, and it comes on top of the fact that, as everyone knows, we need to provide more primary school places. I commend the council for its quick action.

Lindsay Roy: Since the Government took office, the United Kingdom has suffered the second biggest fall in wages that we have seen in any of the G20 countries. Does the Prime Minister think that that is evidence that he has saved our economy?

David Cameron: As I have said on several occasions during this Question Time, if we want to see living standards recover properly—and I do—there is only
	one sustainable way of making that happen. We need a growing economy, we need to keep on top of inflation, we need to ensure that mortgage rates are kept low, and we then need to cut people’s taxes by raising the personal allowance. That is how we can help households with their disposable income. If we listened to Labour and had more spending, more borrowing and more debt, the first things to go up would be interest rates and mortgage rates. For all the talk of the costs that families face, that increase in mortgage rates would wipe out all the hard work that we have done.
	[Interruption.] 
	The shadow Chancellor says “You wait.” Well, we are waiting—for one single sensible suggestion from a party whose Front Benchers have got it comprehensively wrong in the last three years.

Anne Main: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Bangladesh, I am pleased to be leading a delegation as part of the preparation for our report on the Rana Plaza collapse. I thank the Department for International Development for its rapid response, and I am grateful for all the extra funding that was provided for it. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging all businesses in the United Kingdom that trade in garments to ensure that their trade is ethical, and that other people are not being exploited for the benefit of our markets?

David Cameron: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she does to further relations between Britain and Bangladesh, and thank her for her reference to DFID, which works extremely hard with that country. She is absolutely right to draw attention to that appalling industrial accident, and to encourage companies to check their supply chains and establish where their produce is coming from. She has made a very important point, and I wish her well with the work that she is doing with Bangladesh.

Virendra Sharma: Does the Prime Minister think that the A and E crisis has anything to do with the fact that he has cut
	the number of nurses by more than 5,000 since the general election, according to figures published by the Health and Social Care Information Centre?

David Cameron: The point is that since the election we have protected health spending and we are putting an extra £12.7 billion into our NHS, and the number of clinical staff, including doctors, in our hospitals has gone up, whereas the number of managers has gone down. Under Labour, things were heading in an entirely different direction.

Bob Russell: Successive Governments have condemned ethnic cleansing. Will the Prime Minister today condemn Israel for its ethnic cleansing of 40,000 Bedouin?

David Cameron: This Government have a very clear policy on the issue of Israel and on the issue of settlements. We respect and welcome Israel’s right to exist, and we defend that, but on settlements we think that the Israeli approach is wrong and we condemn the settlement activity, and we have been consistent in saying that both privately and publicly.

George Galloway: Does the Prime Minister get it, Mr Speaker: that if it were not for this House of Commons reflecting the mood of the British public, Britain and the United States would already be in the midst of what, it has turned out, would have been a wholly unnecessary war? Is not this a vindication of Parliament, and a vindication of Mr Churchill’s words that jaw-jaw is better than war-war?

David Cameron: What it is a vindication of is the determination to stand up to chemical weapons use. We would not be in this situation of pursuing new avenues of getting Syrian chemical weapons out of Syria and destroyed unless a strong stance had been taken. That is the right answer, not crawling up to dictators and telling them how wonderful they are.

Personal Statement

Nigel Evans: I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will bear with me during this personal statement. It has been a few years since I made a speech in this Chamber, and I am sad to say that this is the speech.
	As many of you will know, following recent allegations I was charged with alleged offences yesterday. I now have the opportunity robustly to defend my innocence and seek acquittal. I have therefore decided that the best course of action is for me to return to the Back Benches. This is a decision that I have made myself after careful consideration.
	I did not have the Conservative Whip as Deputy Speaker and I am not seeking its return until after the conclusion of events. I will sit as an independent Member of Parliament for the Ribble Valley.
	It was one of the happiest days of my life when I was elected Deputy Speaker in 2010. It was an endorsement of my abilities to do the job by my colleagues, and for that I am grateful. Since these allegations, I have not been able fully to fulfil my duties in the Chair, which left me in a land of limbo. None of us was elected to the fine office of Member of Parliament to be put in that invidious position: unable fully to fulfil the reason we were sent here.
	I am so grateful to the Speaker, and to the two other Deputy Speakers, the right hon. Members for Chorley (Mr Hoyle) and for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo), for the unstinting support they have given me over the three years, but particularly since 4 May in filling in for me on my Chair duties. When I told the right hon. Member for Bristol South of my decision on Saturday, I even got a hug from her: thank you, Dawn.
	I have had so many hugs, prayers and good wishes since 4 May, and I would like to thank everyone who has shown me such compassionate consideration, my family particularly, and my association who have been marvellous, and even seasoned, crusty journalists have displayed a heart which I have never before witnessed; you know who you are.
	I was told I will soon see who my real friends are, and that has been true, but the truth is there have been so many of them, so thank you to my dearest loyal friends, including loyal members of my staff at Westminster
	and the Ribble Valley, and to you, my colleagues on all sides of the House who have spoken with me, looked after me, and just shown loving attention. Party divisions disappear at times like this—and they have, so thank you.
	Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the Speaker’s Chaplain, and Andrew Tremlett, the Canon of Westminster Abbey, have given me superb spiritual guidance, which has given me the one thing that everyone in this world needs, alongside air, water and food—hope. Hope is that essential key to giving us a fulfilled life, and they have ensured that I retain my hope.
	This is clearly the most painful thing I have endured in my life, alongside the loss of my mother in 2009 and the loss of my brother earlier this year. Winston Churchill said, “When you are going through hell, keep going.” That is sage advice. And so I will see this through to the end, with the support of the people who mean so much to me.
	Returning to the Back Benches gives me the opportunity to speak out on issues such as the over-building of new homes in the Ribble Valley, threats to the Slaidburn doctors’ surgery and cuts to rural bus services—and so many others. It is the bread and butter of politics: giving support to the people who put me in the mother of Parliaments—my home for the past 21 years, and a place that has meant so much to me. I am proud to serve the people of the Ribble Valley, and the best tribute I can give them now is to get on with the job they sent me here to do. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that personal statement. For the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members who were not in the Chamber immediately after Prayers when I formally notified the House of the fact of the hon. Gentleman’s resignation, I should like to repeat what I said then, just over an hour ago.
	The service that the hon. Gentleman has rendered to the House as First Deputy Chairman of Ways of Means and a Deputy Speaker of this House has been exemplary. He has demonstrated to the satisfaction of colleagues throughout the House that he is competent, fair and good humoured. He has proved to be a loyal and hugely valued member of the Chair’s team. I am enormously grateful to him, and I know that the Deputy Speakers feel the same. When the House returns in October, I shall notify colleagues of the procedure to be followed for the election of a successor First Deputy Chairman of Ways of Means.

Points of Order

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In Question 3 in Scottish questions today, something was referred to as a “separate Scotland”. I do not know what a separate Scotland is, and I presume that you do not know what a separate Scotland is, and certainly nobody is trying to create one. It is an argumentative term and a pejorative one used by the opponents of Scottish independence. I raised this issue with the Clerks yesterday and they agreed that the term should not have been on the Order Paper today. Can you assure me that “separate Scotland” will not appear again in any question on the Order Paper?

Mr Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it. He is, essentially, asking me whether the use of the word “separate” contravenes the rule against argument in parliamentary questions. The very fact that I am being invited to make a ruling suggests to me that a degree of controversy surrounds the word. There is a perfectly serviceable word that is used in legislation—“independent”. I think it would be best if we stuck to that in future where the rules of the House require neutral expressions. However, the use of the phrase “a separate Scotland” in debate or in supplementary questions is not unparliamentary. I hope that that is helpful.

John Robertson: rose—

Mr Speaker: No further point of order arises in respect of the ruling on this matter that I have given. I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to know that he would not be so unwise or discourteous as to challenge the Chair, because he is both wise and courteous.

Caroline Lucas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have evidence, which I have in my hand, that French company MagForce International and Chinese company Tianjin Myway International Trading have been promoting illegal weapons of torture at the DSEI arms fair, which is being held in London docklands this week. Can you advise me how
	to get that information to Ministers at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills as fast as possible to get them urgently to make a statement in this House about how that can have happened, especially since this is not the first time that illegal weapons have been found at DSEI?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. Not for the first time, and probably not for the last, she has found her own salvation. She inquires about the quickest means by which to ensure that her concern is relayed to representatives of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has to say and I am sure that it will be a matter of only seconds before her remarks wing their way to the Secretary of State. It is then for him to decide how to respond. It is not a matter of order for the Chair but the hon. Lady is well aware of the opportunities she has to call Ministers to account and I feel sure that she will deploy the weapons at her disposal.

John Robertson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: This point of order from the hon. Gentleman is, I am sure, on an entirely unrelated matter.

John Robertson: rose—

Mr Speaker: On a separate matter?

John Robertson: It is, but there is a connection to the first point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. I totally agree with your judgment on the original point of order, but may we have a judgment on when that same party attacks Scottish Labour Members of Parliament and calls them “London Labour”? That is an insult not only to the MPs but to Scotland in general. May I have a ruling on that, please?

Mr Speaker: First, I have ruled. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman, who could not conceal the evident smile on his face, is an indefatigable campaigner. He has broad shoulders and he is well able to look after himself. I think that on this occasion I have nothing to add. He has made his own point in his own way and it is on the record. I trust that his appetite on the matter is satisfied, at least for today.

Medical Innovation (No. 2)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Michael Ellis: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about innovation in medical treatment.
	It is a great honour to bring this Bill, which was introduced in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Saatchi, to the Commons. I want to take this opportunity to thank the many supporters of the Bill in this House and outside it, who come from across the political spectrum. The fight against cancer and other diseases is one cause that engenders widespread support.
	Cancer, as we all know, is a scourge on society and affects the lives of millions of people in this country, so this Bill is about how we can help liberate doctors to innovate and how we can help those deeply dedicated doctors in their drive to find cures and improvements to what are in some cases very stale and even ineffectual treatments.
	Cancer will touch almost every person in this country at some time in their life. Many hon. Members will have places of excellence in their constituencies where scientists may research, doctors treat, nurses care and volunteers comfort. In my constituency of Northampton North, for example, the first-class Cynthia Spencer hospice provides devoted and invaluable hospice care for those suffering from this terrible illness. For all these efforts, though, there is always more that can and must be done.
	The Bill could make every doctor a researcher and every willing patient a research participant. This country has already produced 34 Nobel prize winners in medicine, but we want more so we must ensure that the UK stays ahead, and to keep pace with what is happening, we must radically change the way we innovate.
	The NHS is an amazing asset to innovation because it has a huge wealth of information, all consented to, all anonymised, that is helping it find new answers. The end result could be that every willing patient was a research patient, which would mean that every time a patient used the NHS, they would be playing a part in the fight against disease. Echoing those words, the Government’s life sciences adviser, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), is joining me by sponsoring the Bill.
	Unfortunately, that vision, which is shared by doctors and charities, might soon hit a roadblock—a seemingly immovable object—of the law, so that is what the Bill is designed to remedy. Let us imagine that a doctor is standing beside a patient and considering a sensible, peer group-approved innovation, to which full consent has been given, after other options have been exhausted and there is little else that can be done. At the moment, that doctor is stopped by the law—or the fear of the law, which is the same thing. The doctor must ask himself, “Do I really want to go along this route of innovation because, if I do, I will depart from the ‘standard procedure’, and then if anything goes wrong, there will be a trial at which I could be found guilty of medical negligence. Should I put my livelihood, family and reputation at risk, or should I stick to the well-worn
	path from which no liability can arise?” The law at present obliges the doctor to follow the status quo, even though they know full well that that standard practice leads only to a short period of poor life quality followed by death, and that is how scientific discovery is blocked by the current state of the law.
	That is not how it was in the past, when innovation happened much more readily. For example, penicillin did not face such roadblocks. Present law, however, mandates that patients receive only the standard procedure, which is really the endless repetition of a failed experiment. The problem is that the law defines medical negligence as a deviation from that standard procedure, so the law’s insistence on following the standard procedure is really a barrier to progress on curing cancer. Any doctor’s deviation from standard procedure is likely to amount to medical negligence.
	Standard procedure is defined simply as a procedure that would have been followed by a competent body of medical persons skilled in the aspect of medicine in question. However, innovation, by its very definition, is something new—a deviation from what went before that did not work. Without deviation from standard procedure, there is no innovation and nothing changes, and the treatment of many cancers has not changed for decades, which is one of the reasons there is no cure for cancer.
	In one medical negligence case, it was said in court:
	“The practitioner who treads the well-worn path will usually be safer from legal liability than the one who adopts a newly discovered method of treatment.”
	The result of all this is that a doctor deciding how to treat a particular case starts with the knowledge that as soon as he or she moves away from existing and established standards within the profession, there is an automatic and serious risk that he or she will be found guilty of negligence, if the treatment is less successful than hoped. When there is only one established practice, even if it is the same course of treatment that has been applied unchanged for 40 years without any particular history of success, it will be impossible for a doctor to depart from it with confidence that he or she will not be exposed to litigation.
	Some might ask why a change to the law is suddenly so urgent. It is because while the law may not have changed much, society has. The number of lawsuits filed against the NHS has doubled in four years. Last year’s payout was £1.2 billion. The Treasury provision for claims against the NHS has now reached £19 billion. Doctors are therefore increasingly frightened of being sued and even less likely to feel able to innovate. Furthermore, risk-management processes in the NHS and insurers’ policies only strengthen this roadblock to innovation. A growing fear of litigation has stifled innovation, which is why we need a change in the law to realise the well-expressed vision that every doctor can be a researcher.
	We certainly do not want patients to be treated like mice, so the Bill would set out in law for the first time the obvious difference between reckless experimentation and responsible, scientific innovation. The Bill actually strengthens the ability of the medical profession to prevent reckless conduct and to control innovation properly. The good doctor will therefore feel safer in the work that he or she does, and the bad doctor will more easily be revealed as negligent.
	How will the Bill do that? It will require the formal approval of any proposed innovation by a hospital’s multi-disciplinary team of doctors, so not only will the innovation need the fully informed consent of the patient, but a hospital’s own multi-disciplinary team of doctors will have to approve it. This is a severe test, more severe than the two doctors’ authorisation that is required by law in order to carry out, for example, an abortion under the Abortion Act 1967, or the two psychiatrists needed to authorise sectioning someone in a mental health institution under the Mental Health Act 1983. Under those provisions, the authorisation of two medical professionals is required. To authorise innovation as I propose, a panel of medical professionals will need to consent. It is a severe test, but however severe, it is better than the current position, in which the road ahead to any innovation in cancer treatment is closed by law.
	The Bill will not cure cancer. It will be doctors who cure cancer. This legislation, however, will give those wonderful doctors of ours the certainty they need to innovate and eventually find the cure that will bring such joy to all whose lives have been affected by this dreadful disease. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Michael Ellis and George Freeman present the Bill.
	Michael Ellis accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September 2013, and to be printed (Bill 107).

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

[Relevant Documents: The Seventh Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, on the Government’s Lobbying Bill, HC 601, and the First Report from the Committee on Standards, on the Government’s Lobbying Bill, HC 638.]

[3rd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee (Progress reported, 10 September)

[Dawn Primarolo in the Chair]

Clause 36
	 — 
	Duty to Provide Membership Audit Certificate

Ian Murray: I beg to move amendment 103,page37,line39,leave out
	‘in relation to each reporting period’
	and insert
	‘if
	(a) a formal complaint is received by the Certification Officer that would result in the Certification Officer requiring a membership audit in relation to the reporting period when the complaint was verified and
	(b) the Certification Officer determined that a certificate was required.’.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 104,page38,line7,at end insert
	‘unless—
	(a) the Trade Union is appealing the membership certificate; or
	(b) the Trade Union has challenged the Certification Officer’s acceptance of a membership audit certificate and invoked paragraph (a).’.
	Amendment 106,page38,line22,leave out from ‘certificate’ to end of line 23 and insert
	‘for which the trade union may request reasonable payment as per charges for requests for access to accounting periods in section 30(6).’.
	Amendment 121, in clause37,page38,line42,leave out
	‘in relation to each reporting period’
	and insert
	‘if section 24ZA(1) is invoked’.
	Clause stand part.

Ian Murray: It is a great pleasure to get to part 3 under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo. I shall speak to clause stand part as well as to all the amendments in the group. It is totally inadequate that we are discussing part 3 of this hotch-potch of a Bill without having seen the impact assessment for part 3 or any results from the curtailed consultation that was put in place at the start of the process.
	It is worth putting the amendments into context. The past three days and the hundreds of e-mails that all Members have received from their constituents show how much of a dog’s breakfast the Bill is. It is in good company, following the hotch-potch of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and the total shambles that the House witnessed during the passage of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. Part 3 of the Bill before us provides wide-ranging new powers to the certification officer on trade union membership lists, but no one, including officials of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the discussion paper, the explanatory notes, the trade unions and, I bet, even the Minister can tell the Committee what problem the Bill is trying to resolve.
	The TUC stated in its evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:
	“As with part two we are unable to discern the problem that this part of the Bill is meant to remedy.”
	Nigel Stanley from the TUC went on to say:
	“We have asked BIS, the certification officer and ACAS through freedom of information requests whether they have received or made representations that we need to amend current powers to regulate union membership . . . We cannot find any demand for part 3.”
	The only justification for part 3 has been the publicly stated view that it came out of a high-level meeting between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. What a contribution and combination that is. I wonder whether Lyndon Crosby was in the room at the time.
	Without any rationale for the Bill coming from the Government, perhaps we have to look for our own rationale. The reason given for the Bill by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in its discussion paper is the potential for trade union activity to affect people’s daily lives. It says:
	“The general public should be confident that voting papers and other communications are reaching union members so that they have the opportunity to participate”.

Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend is aware, as we all are, of the clamour for at least 20 years for the reform of lobbying practices. Can he think of any demand for part 3? Is it not sensible to judge that this is merely an afterthought—a spiteful swipe at the trade union movement—in order to distract from the fact that the Bill does not address 95% of commercial corporate lobbyists?

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is right. Parts 1 and 2 have been shown over the past few days to be utterly deficient. There is no evidence, no drive, no remedy to be pursued, no problem to be resolved that would justify part 3. There is legislation in place, which I shall come on to later, which shows that membership lists from trade unions are heavily regulated already. Part 3 is merely a legislative burden on the trade unions timed to deflect attention, as my hon. Friend says, from other parts of the Bill that are completely deficient.

David Anderson: My hon. Friend hit the nail on the head when he said that part 3 came from the high-level discussion between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. This is a continuation of other Bills that have been introduced over the past
	three years on the constitution of this country. They all aim at one thing—giving advantage to the parties in the coalition in the upcoming general election. Yesterday we saw their attempt to hide from lobbying groups and not be answerable to them. Now they are trying to curtail the influence of the trade unions and the support that they give to the Labour party in particular to give their own parties an advantage. That is what this is all about.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government cannot win the next general election on the arguments so they nullify the Opposition. It is ironic that part 3 heavily regulates trade union membership lists, whereas most of the stuff attacking workers’ rights came from the report written by a certain Mr Beecroft, who donated £550,000 to the Conservative party. The Bill deals not with the Beecrofts of this world but with the ordinary working people throughout the country.

Jonathan Edwards: Does not part 3 show that the Bill is partisan, and is it not one of the main reasons the Bill has lost the confidence of the public?

Ian Murray: Absolutely. Parts 1 and 2 have been shown to have lost public confidence. I am happy to be corrected, but since I came to the House in 2010 I do not think I have had this number of lobbying e-mails from concerned constituents who feel that they are going to be gagged by this Government. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), the governing parties cannot win the next general election on the arguments alone so they are trying to nullify the opposition, which is made up of trade unions, charities and lobbying organisations which do so much on behalf of our constituents throughout the country.
	No evidence was put forward in the discussion paper to demonstrate that communications are not reaching trade union members or that there are shortcomings in the existing law relating to a trade union’s duty to maintain a register of members. Moreover, no evidence was produced to explain why the Government need to acquire yet further extensive powers over the lives of citizens and voters through this mechanism.

Iain McKenzie: Does my hon. Friend find it as bizarre as I do that the Government are demanding that trade unions reveal their membership lists in detail, yet the Conservative party keeps its membership secret?

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend makes an interesting intervention—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), a Lib Dem Minister, shakes her head—and he is absolutely right; the Conservative party refuses point blank not only to give us any details of its membership, but to tell us how many members it has. I believe that is either because it cannot tell us or because its membership lists are deficient. [Interruption.] The Government Whip chunters “Tell us yours” from the Treasury Bench, but essentially we are talking about the Conservative party.
	The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, in its justification for this part of the Bill, stated:
	“The general public should be confident that voting papers and other communications are reaching union members so that they have the opportunity to participate”
	because they affect everyday lives in this country. Well, if the governing party does not affect the daily lives of people in this country, I do not know who does. Perhaps we should extend the Bill’s provisions to that party. The only thing we know about Conservative party membership, of course, is that the average age is 68, which might tell us something about where the party is going.
	We should not be surprised by the Government’s failure to provide any evidence, as we know that they run by opinion poll and anecdote. The House will recall the now infamous Beecroft report, which would take this country’s employment rights and health and safety landscapes back to the era of Queen Victoria. When Beecroft appeared before the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Committee last year, he said that he had absolutely no evidence to back up such claims on compensated no-fault dismissal and the abolition of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, to name but a few, but that his assessments were based on anecdotal evidence and who he had spoken to. This “met a guy in a pub” type policy making is certainly not good government.

Hywel Francis: My hon. Friend raises some fundamental human rights issues. When I asked the Deputy Leader of the House yesterday why the Government had failed to produce a human rights memorandum, he failed to answer. Perhaps that speaks volumes—[Interruption.] I am not sure what the Leader of the House just said from a sedentary position, but perhaps he will want to respond properly in due course.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will move on to clause 37 later this afternoon, when we will address some of the issues relating to confidentiality and the European articles. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House chunters from a sedentary position that we should speak to the amendments. As I understand it, Mr Speaker has grouped the stand part debate with the amendments, and I am addressing why I think clause 36 and part 3 of the Bill are deficient, which I think is perfectly appropriate.
	I was talking about the Beecroft report’s ideological attack on working people and how the Government are making it easier to fire, rather than hire, employees. That is reflected in the thrust behind amendment 103— I say this for the benefit of the Leader of the House—and subsequent amendments in this group. The Government have yet again failed to produce any evidence whatsoever on what problem they are trying to resolve and what the impact will be on membership lists. Not only do they have no evidence, but, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, they do not even have an impact assessment for this part of the Bill and they have done no suitable consultation.

John Cryer: My hon. Friend will remember that Adrian Beecroft appeared before the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Committee last year. When asked detailed questions, he
	could give absolutely no evidence whatsoever for what he was suggesting, yet some of those suggestions can be found in this Bill today.

Ian Murray: Absolutely, which is why we should be addressing those issues in the Beecroft report, because they influence part 3 of the Bill. Perhaps Ministers, rather than chuntering from a sedentary position, might at last answer some of these questions when they come to the Dispatch Box.
	I was talking about the lack of suitable consultation. As far as I am aware, the Government have still not published an impact or cost assessment for part 3 —[Interruption.] The Minister says that they have, but it was not there at 10.30 this morning. They did publish assessments for parts 1 and 2 back in July. In fact, the equality assessment states:
	“A full impact assessment will be developed after, and informed by, a period of targeted consultation and engagement of a range of experts.”
	But the Committee is debating this legislation before any of that work has been either completed or formally published.

Graham Allen: On the question of consultation, my hon. Friend has quoted from the TUC’s evidence, which was given to my Committee in very short order indeed, because the Committee decided that the House should have some evidence. The reality is that this part of the Bill appeared eight working days ago; it appeared just before the end of July, the day before the House rose, and Second Reading was the day after the House returned, so that is three working days, and that was a week ago. If one wanted part of a Bill to not be properly scrutinised, this is precisely how one would do it. Either this House will do the scrutiny properly, or the other place will do it in due course.

Ian Murray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, he has done some wonderful work on the Bill, and at very short notice. It is a great credit not only to him and the Committee’s staff, but to the other Members who serve on it. He has demonstrated how the Government operate. If one wanted to put something through that was ideologically driven but did not want it to be scrutinised, one would do as the Government have done with this Bill.

Paul Flynn: Was not my hon. Friend astonished by the fact that, while 11 Conservative MPs last night voted against the low, mean attack on charities, not a single Lib Dem MP did so? Why does he think they are so enthusiastic to embrace their own extinction?

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend tempts me to use unparliamentary language, but I will not go down that route. It is a fact that last night every single Lib Dem Member went into the Lobby with the Government to vote for part 2 and that it was only Conservative rebels who decided not to put up with the Bill. I think that is unfortunate.

Andrew George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Murray: I will take one more intervention, but then I will have to make some progress.

Andrew George: I do not want to tempt the hon. Gentleman into using unparliamentary language, but he is factually incorrect. I do not wish to have yesterday’s debate about charities all over again, but the fact is that reassurances were given by the Government that there is a lot of work to be done, in which I hope we will all engage so that we can bring forward improvements on Report. I would have thought that we should all be working constructively towards that end.

Ian Murray: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Perhaps we could return to clause 36 and the amendments before us. General Third Reading points about the entire Bill, or any comments about the whole part, are not in order.

Ian Murray: Thank you, Ms Primarolo. You are absolutely right. That would have tempted me to discuss the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) producing amendments to other Bills in Committee and then not following through on the Floor of the House.
	I was talking about the Government’s failure to produce any evidence, which I think feeds into amendment 103, because it is critical to the operation of the entire part, in relation to clause 36. My second point about the Department’s consultation is that it has not published or responded to any of the responses. The only information that Members of the House have seen is when people who have responded to the BIS consultation have self-published them, and I do not think that is good enough.
	Trade unions are already heavily regulated, not just with regard to membership, but in other areas, too. No other membership organisations, voluntary sector groups, businesses or, indeed, political parties in the UK are subject to equivalent rules. There are already extensive regulations through the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1992 and the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998—a fact that the Government seem to have wholeheartedly disregarded in bringing forward the Bill—and the responsibility trade unions have to the Information Commissioner.

Jonathan Djanogly: When the hon. Gentleman refers to the 1992 Act, he is of course referring to legislation from the mid-1980s that was virtually lifted into that Act. Does he not think that it is now time for a general review of that 1980s legislation?

Ian Murray: If the hon. Gentleman wants to bring forward a general review of any legislation, he is more than welcome to do so. Perhaps in my haste I forgot to use the word “consolidated”. I was referring to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, because of course it consolidated lots of legislation from the mid-1980s.
	It is self-evident that trade unions want to have good membership records; I cannot see why anyone would argue that they do not. It is in trade unions’ own interests to engage with members just as any voluntary organisation wishes to maximise membership fees and ensure that people want to remain as members. Unions
	are nothing without their members; they exist to represent their members. They invest in a wide array of ways of communicating with them—from printed magazines, leaflets and posters, to websites, social media and e-newsletters.
	Let us look at what clause 36 proposes for unions with more than 10,000 members. Should political parties have to account for their members? On Second Reading, the Leader of the House said:
	“Trade unions are influential participants in public life. They have an important role representing members’ interests both with specific employers and in wider public debate.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 184.]
	Who would argue with that? On the certification of trade union membership details, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills discussion paper says on page 4:
	“Trade union activity has the potential to affect the daily lives of members and non- members.”
	Surely those definitions apply as much to political parties as to trade unions. Political parties represent their members’ interests, influence wider public debate and can affect the lives of members and non-members. Trade union members represent a very wide and varied section of the general public.
	The House of Commons Library brief shows that there are 7.2 million trade unionists. They represent a cross-section of ages, are split evenly in terms of gender and are well represented in terms of race, disability and types of work. Surely trade unions are in a good position to influence and share public opinion. In sharp contrast, there is an organisation that is the complete opposite and totally unrepresentative—the aforementioned Conservative party, which refuses to say how many members it has.

Graham Allen: On a point of order, Ms Primarolo. My Committee looked at the White Paper on the lobbying Bill about 18 months ago. It made no mention of anything to do with the trade unions. The trade union provisions appeared in July, one day before the House rose—a bit about trade unions was bolted on to a Bill that all of us in the House had already dealt with as a lobbying Bill. Is it in order for those provisions to have been added when the House has been under the misapprehension that the Bill is about lobbying? Is this not a hybrid Bill and therefore disqualified from discussion in the House?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is very experienced and has been a Member for a long time. As he knows, what he has asked is not a point of order. The House has given the Bill a Second Reading, and his points are for debate, if necessary, on the Floor of the House. They are certainly not a matter of order for the consideration of the Chair today.

Ian Murray: Thank you, Ms Primarolo, for that ruling on an important point of order. I remind my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, that other stuff has been bolted on to Bills, including the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill—disgracefully, the agricultural wages board was abolished at the last minute in the House of Lords without any political debate in this House.
	Before the Government start lecturing unions about transparency, they should take a long, hard look in the mirror, subject themselves to this legislation and publish their own membership audit certificate.

Iain McKenzie: Will my hon. Friend share with the Committee why he thinks a Government who came to power saying that they would cut and eliminate red tape should apply it to the trade unions?

Ian Murray: That is a good question. The Government have a policy initiative of taking out two regulations for every one brought in. Will the Minister say which regulatory burden she will be removing from the trade union movement, given the regulations that she has just put on the statute book? The Government have wholeheartedly refused to deal with zero-hours contracts, blacklisting, payday loans and the high cost of credit, but they are unnecessarily piling regulations on to the trade unions.

Yasmin Qureshi: Is not my hon. Friend’s point the fact that the Government do not want to regulate people such as Lynton Crosby, yet do want to punish trade unions, whose only sin is to represent the ordinary working person? The only things they have ever campaigned for are people’s right to work, the ending of zero-hours contracts, decent pay and conditions, and decent standards. They are being hit, yet all the rich lobbyists such as Lynton Crosby are allowed to get off scot free.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend tempts me to stray from the amendments, but she is absolutely right. Week after week, the Prime Minister tells us at Prime Minister’s questions how wonderful the car industry is. The car industry in this country was saved by a partnership of people who owned the car industry, the trade unions and the work force all working together. The industry survived and is now in a healthy position—all credit to all those involved.

David Hamilton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on outlining why the unions are being singled out. If the issue is fairness, should not shareholders of every company be balloted every time approaches are made to the Government?

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I am so concerned that clause 36 has been added to this part of the Bill without discussion or proper consultation. There are already strict legislative mechanisms to look after trade union membership, but none at all to regulate shareholders or indeed members of the Conservative party. The fact that that party will not say how many members it has shows that we need regulation for that issue as well.

Graham Allen: Could not the shadow Minister answer our hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) in this way? If on a lobbying Bill we are allowed to add in stuff about charities and trade unions, could not our hon. Friend produce another part to the Bill that addressed
	the issue he raises about shareholders? Obviously, that would be in order—anything can be added. Hon. Members from across the House could add stuff on child care, foreign policy or the Government’s war-making powers. Bringing forward a Bill and bolting on a part such as this at a very late stage is an abuse. It is surely not in order.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, I will decide what is in order. If a Bill has unrelated purposes in it, that does not necessarily make it a hybrid Bill in procedural terms. It would be as well for us to concentrate on the points before us now.

Ian Murray: Thank you for that ruling, Ms Primarolo. All I would say is that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) is one of the most experienced people in the House. Perhaps he could bring forward an amendment on Report to consider the issue of regulating shareholders.

David Hamilton: I’ll get on the phone.

Ian Murray: I am sure that he will be phoning round urgently to get that going.

Jonathan Djanogly: rose—

Ian Murray: I will give way once more, and then I must make progress.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that shareholder registers are much more highly regulated than union registers. That is one reason why we need to see the changes.

Ian Murray: I do not think that shareholders are balloted on remuneration; they do not have much ability to stop remuneration packages. They are not balloted on political donations or the overall direction of the company. In fact, individual shareholders in businesses are very weak indeed.

Jonathan Djanogly: rose—

Ian Murray: I am happy to give way one last time to the hon. Gentleman.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 does deal with votes for remuneration. Indeed, companies have to have annual votes for political donations—unlike unions, which vote only every 10 years to see whether they have a political fund at all.

Ian Murray: At least when everybody is balloted on anything to do with trade union membership, it is completely and utterly transparent because it is already regulated. That is why we do not need this part of the Bill; trade unions are rather heavily regulated already.
	I move on to amendment 104, on the membership audit certificate. The Bill states that a union must send any membership audit certificate in relation to the annual reporting period to the certification officer at the same time as the trade union annual report. That may be good and well, but there is absolutely no natural
	justice for the trade union itself; that point has been made forcefully by the National Union of Teachers. What if the membership certificate is challengeable? It would not be correct for a document of such magnitude to be delivered to the certification officer, with all their new regulatory, enforcement and investigatory powers, without allowing the trade union an opportunity to appeal what the certificate says.
	There are no mechanisms at this stage for the union to make representations to the certification officer on the content of the certificate. That does not seem to be a proper process of natural justice or, indeed, fairness. The methods that assurers will follow to determine a membership audit certificate are not yet known. Moreover, given that there is already a well-established body of law covering the membership lists of trade unions, there should be a proper mechanism to appeal or challenge a certificate.
	In the absence of a clear process, trade unions should have the right to challenge the certification officer’s acceptance of a membership audit certificate. This should involve a pause in publication and the right for the union to make representations on the content of the certificate, with ultimately, perhaps, an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where qualified judges can make a determination that any qualifications on an audit certificate are valid and appropriate. The amendment would pause the sending of a membership audit certificate to the certification officer if the trade union is appealing the certificate or has indicated to the certification officer that he should not accept the certificate and the trade union will be appealing its content through a process to be determined. That is a fair and reasonable way to uphold natural justice and provide a degree of certainty in the system. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment.
	Since the Government have been unable to justify what this part of the Bill is trying to achieve and will not even tell us their party’s own membership levels, we must start from a position of determining whether the existing system is working. The Opposition will do that work for the Government if they are not willing to do it. As the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) said, since the mid-1980s every trade union has been under a duty to compile and maintain a register of the names and addresses of its members. That duty is provided for in section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Under that Act, a trade union has a duty to maintain a register of names and addresses of its members and a duty,
	“so far as reasonably practicable”,
	to ensure that entries in the register are kept up to date. Section 24 also provides that a union must allow any member, on reasonable notice, to ascertain whether the register contains an entry relating to him or her and, if requested, supply a copy of any such entry. This means that the trade union has an existing obligation in law to ensure that its records are accurate.
	The existing law specifies that there is an obligation to remove from the register the names of those no longer wishing to be members, that the primary responsibility for informing a union of a change of address is that of the member—I hope that hon. Members remember that part, in particular—and that there is a duty to secure an accurate register
	“so far as reasonably practicable”,
	which permits a margin of error. The remedy for failure to comply with these requirements is by way of complaint to the certification officer or the courts. Section 25 of the Act states:
	“A member of a trade union who claims that the union has failed to comply with any of the requirements of section 24…may apply to the Certification Officer for a declaration to that effect.”
	The main thrust of amendment 103 is that, in our view, clause 36 is without foundation and encourages vexatious inquiries for no purpose. I also contend that it will not make membership lists any more accurate. I will be interested to hear whether the Minister has any evidence whatsoever that demonstrates that overlaying this law on to the existing law will make trade unions’ membership lists any more accurate.
	On Second Reading, the Leader of the House said of the clause:
	“It will require trade unions visibly to demonstrate that they know who their members are and can contact them. The principle that unions must be able to contact their members”—
	this is key—
	“is well established in legislation.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 184, c. 567.]
	He is right; it is well established in law already. The facts bear this out, and I will give some of them to highlight how detailed membership information already is, as shown by the extensive annual reports published on the certification officer’s website. First, the certification officer’s annual report for 2012-13 says that 166 trade unions submitted returns—not membership lists but returns—recording a total of 7,197,415 members, a figure that does not appear to be inaccurate, compared with 7,261,210 in the previous year: again, a very exact figure. The largest reduction in membership was in the construction sector, which perhaps says more about the Government’s policies than trade union membership.
	Secondly, the annual return has to include a copy of the auditor’s report on the accounts, allowing the certification officer to compare revenue from dues with the numbers reported. In 2012-13, the last full year for which returns have been published on the certification officer’s website, the returns showed that income from members increased by 1.3% to £873 million. The returns also show that the total number of contributing members was about 90.5% of the total membership, compared with 89.4% in the preceding year. There are a number of detailed reasons why those figures differ, but to go into them would rule me out of order. As I am trying to demonstrate, the information is already available in the public domain for anyone to dig into. It is on the certification officer’s website, transposed from the annual reports of each of the 166 trade unions that submitted their returns. I would think that any reasonably independent person looking at those publicly available reports would agree that the Government already have extensive information-gathering powers on the finances and membership of trade unions.
	Significantly, in 2012-13 not a single trade union member lodged a complaint with the certification officer about the maintenance of the register’s names and addresses.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman says that no one made a complaint. Can that not be turned around? If members of the public suffer when a service is removed because of a fraudulent union vote and they cannot go
	about their daily work, why should only members of the union be able to complain about that and ask for an investigation?

Ian Murray: Members of the public are suffering not because of the trade unions but because of the policies of the Government. While the hon. Gentleman continues to attack ordinary working people up and down this country, people will be looking at this at home and thinking how out of touch this Government are.
	I repeat that in 2012-13, significantly, not a single trade union member out of the 7,197,415 members registered with the certification officer made one complaint to him about the maintenance of the registers of members’ names and addresses—that is, not one complaint from nearly 7.2 million people. Let me emphasise that the trade unions and the certification officer work very closely together because they have a mutual interest in ensuring that processes are accurate and transparent. The certification officer’s own figures bear this out, and it is worth recording them; it is a shame that the hon. Gentleman does not have a piece of paper and a pen to write them down. Some of the figures may shock Members because they reaffirm how much of this Bill is completely ideologically driven and total and utter nonsense.
	In the past five years, the certification officer has had no complaints to adjudicate on from, if we take the figure of 7.2 million, a total of nearly 40 million people on the membership registers. In fact, he has had only six complaints since 2000. Five of those were dismissed and he did not even issue a declaration on the sixth. Only 10 complaints have gone to a decision since 1987.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is the hon. Gentleman maintaining that because union members are not complaining about their own unions everyone else should be content?

Ian Murray: I keep giving way to the hon. Gentleman to be polite, but his interventions are complete nonsense. We are talking about 7 million to 12 million people being on the registers of trade union members every single year going back to 1987. That information is verifiable under current legislation and publicly available on the certification officer’s website. Yet all the hon. Gentleman can say is that there is a problem. Why do we need this Bill to go beyond the existing legislation? I am happy to give way to him again if he wants to tell me, in no more than one intervention, why part 3 and clause 36 are necessary.

Jonathan Djanogly: People who are not members of a union may have a complaint against, for instance, a vote that is taken, and therefore a proper investigation procedure is needed.

Ian Murray: That has absolutely nothing to do with the registration of 7.2 million trade union members. If an individual member of a trade union on that list has a complaint, I do not see any reason why they would not raise it.

John Cryer: My hon. Friend will be aware that the legal strictures on trade unions with regard to balloting are among the tightest in the world; they are certainly
	the tightest in the European Union. I can think of one ballot for industrial action that was ruled illegal because a comma was in the wrong place. The idea that trade unions—this is the notion suggested by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly)—are conducting fraudulent ballots left, right and centre is simply illusory.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are getting to the crux of the issue, because it is becoming clear exactly why this part has been included in the Bill. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy or otherwise of the membership lists of trade unions. If the Committee does not believe me, it should listen to Lord Tyler, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on constitutional affairs, who said that one explanation for this part of the Bill is the role that some unions play in the Labour party:
	“The third arm of the Bill is about ensuring that trade unions have accurate membership lists. We will listen carefully to what people have to say about how the detail of this is set up, but the principle seems beyond dispute. The membership numbers of a trade union have a bearing on how much money they can give to a political party through their political funds. In this sense, the trade unions have a unique role in UK politics. It is therefore important for transparency’s sake that the membership lists are accurate.”
	I agree with Lord Tyler that it is important that the lists are accurate, but they are already heavily regulated in law. I think this has more to do with the Government’s obsession with the Labour party and trade unions than with legislating to help hard-working, ordinary people.

Sammy Wilson: I had hoped that we would get an explanation as to why this part of the Bill is essential. If the only argument that can be made is that the public should be able to complain about a controversial ballot, surely if it was that controversial it would be taken up by the trade union movement and a trade unionist would object to it rather than wait for a member of the public to do so.

Ian Murray: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. No general secretary of a trade union, whether it is affiliated to the Labour party or not, would take strike action on the basis of a 51:49% vote of its membership. It would also be concerned about the legality of its membership list if any of it was found to be inaccurate, but the point is that legislation on the accuracy of membership lists already exists. It is in the union’s best interests—this has nothing to do with strike action—to have and maintain accurate membership lists, because it wants to communicate with its members, and it is also in the members’ interests to ensure that the unions have accurate details.

Yasmin Qureshi: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill was supposed to deal with moneys being exchanged so that people could pursue personal agendas to, in effect, line their pockets? We have heard about lobbying scandals, but the Bill was never intended to cover trade union members who write to their local MPs to say, “I don’t agree with zero-hours contracts,” or, “My pay is absolutely rubbish; could you please fight for my pay and my terms and conditions?” That is not what the Bill was meant to be designed for, yet it is being used as a weapon to hit the ordinary working person.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not even sure whether Government Members have read amendment 103, because it agrees with the need for a process, but only if a proper complaint is made and verified and the certification officer decides that the process has to be followed. There is nothing wrong with that. It is incredibly transparent.

Frank Doran: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the very small number of complaints made to the certification officer. I have in my hand the text of a speech that was given at a conference that I organised for trade unions and at which the certification officer spoke. The certification officer had done an analysis of complaints and, importantly, highlighted a small number of cases. He found that
	“some of the allegations are clearly made with a view to cause problems for the union and not necessarily because of concern for the member’s interests”,
	and that
	“some of the allegations of irregularities come from those involved in the irregularities”.
	There was nothing of any substance in most of the complaints made.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is right. Our amendment would allow people who have a proper complaint about a trade union’s membership list to make it through the normal channels, and the certification officer would then determine whether the complaint was vexatious or had merit before, on top of all that, deciding whether to instigate a process. If people wish to make legitimate complaints about a trade union’s membership, this Bill gives them a mechanism to do so, but our proposal is that they should be able to do so only if the professionalism of the certification officer proves that that process it is required. Given that there have been only 10 complaints since 1987, I think the certification officer is pretty wily in determining what is and what is not a vexatious claim.

David Anderson: It is interesting that my hon. Friend has gone back to 1987, because the root of the original establishment of this law in the 1980s was a direct political attempt by the then Conservative Government to get trade union members to undermine their own union. There was a backlash after the miners’ strike when the then Government instigated the setting up of the scab unit to try to undermine the trade union activities of the National Union of Mineworkers.
	The issue here is that only a small number of people complain to a certification officer. Does my hon. Friend know—if the Minister were listening, she might be able to answer as well—whether there is any evidence that the certification officer has raised concerns? Has he said that this is not working and that we need to change it? My understanding is that that has never happened.

Ian Murray: The trade unions have complied with the legislation, with bells on, every single year since it was introduced in the mid-’80s, and the published figures are available to the public from the certification office. As I have said, the TUC made a freedom of information request to the certification officer asking whether he had recommended a change in the law to the Government, and he replied that no discussions had taken place. That underlines my hon. Friend’s point.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend is making a powerful and compelling speech. I am tempted, as the organiser of the highly successful 1985 political fund ballots, to venture into all our yesterdays, but I will limit myself to one question. He is telling us that there have been no complaints whatsoever, yet the lobbying Bill has a big part on trade unions. Has he noticed that, although complaints have been made over and over again about lobbying, big business, money and sleaze, they do not appear in a Bill that is called the lobbying Bill, and that something about which there have been no complaints has a big section in it? Is he able to explain that to me?

Ian Murray: I am delighted that this Committee sitting has allowed the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee a little walk down memory lane with regard to his organisation of ballots in the mid-’80s. He is right that there is no compelling evidence. Of the hundreds and hundreds of e-mails I have received from constituents about the Bill, not one has mentioned part 3, because the public are concerned with lobbying, which is what this Bill was supposed to address.
	As I was saying, only 10 complaints had gone to a decision since 1987. As my hon. Friends have suggested in their interventions, we must wonder whether the certification officer needs any of these powers, given the level of activity there is on membership lists. Indeed, the certification officer has less work to do in this particular area than the Leader of the House has in counting support for the Bill. People will be asking themselves whether the powers are unnecessary and disproportionate, and the answer is clearly yes.
	Let us reflect again on what the Leader of the House said on Second Reading:
	“All we are doing is asking unions to provide an annual assurance that they are doing everything that they can to ensure that they know who their members are and how to contact them.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 185.]
	That is almost a one-paragraph description of the current legislation that trade unions abide by, including the Data Protection Act and their responsibilities to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The current law prescribes exactly that. It says that trade unions should ensure that they do all that is—we will come back to this terminology again—“reasonably practicable” to maintain their membership lists.
	While the Government trumpet the slashing of red tape for business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said—and for “slashing red tape” read “demolishing workers’ rights back to what they were in Victorian times”—they are imposing a completely unnecessary burden on trade unions to resolve a problem that does not exist. Indeed, officials at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills cannot tell us what the problem is.
	Amendment 103, with consequential amendment 121, would result in part 3 of the Bill coming into force only if a complaint was received and verified by the certification officer as a valid compliant, and if the certification officer felt that a membership certificate process was required. That goes back to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). The trade unions have absolutely nothing to hide. The amendment would mean that part 3 would come into force only if a verifiable and non-vexatious claim came forward.

Ian Lavery: Is there not a legal contradiction in the Bill? A trade union has a duty under the Data Protection Act to keep in its records, but not to divulge, personal and private details relating to each member. If the Bill is passed, it will give the certification officer, the certification officer’s staff and the new assurers access to that information. That is a huge contradiction and I believe that it contravenes European law. Should we not consider that at the first possible opportunity?

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is right that there are contradictions with the Data Protection Act and an inconsistency with articles 8 and 11 of the European convention on human rights. Those matters will come up when we discuss clause 37 and the cluster of amendments to it. Those inconsistencies highlight the way in which part 3 has been completely rushed through, without any proper consultation or dialogue with the people who are involved. There is also no identifiable problem that will be resolved.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) has just informed me that, as of 1.35 pm this afternoon, the Vote Office still did not have an impact assessment or a response to the consultation. [Interruption.] The Minister might say that that is not correct, but that information must be available to Members. If it is available, I wonder whether the Minister’s office could photocopy two dozen copies and pass them around.

Ian Lavery: It is extremely important with Bills of this nature that there is consultation with all parties that could be affected. Part 3 was introduced in July without any prior notification. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said, there have been only eight working days since then. There has been a lack of consultation and there might not have been any. We have received legal advice that, because this is being done without prior consultation, it could violate the rights to privacy and freedom of association that are enshrined in the European convention on human rights. What is my hon. Friend’s view of that?

Ian Murray: There is a very strong view that part 3 contravenes the European convention on human rights. The Committee will discuss that in some detail when it considers clause 37. That just shows how part 3 is being rushed through.
	I say to the Minister that I am happy to pass around a hat so that Opposition Members who want to see the impact assessment can pay for the photocopying and so that her office does not have to waste paper. Perhaps she could come to the Dispatch Box and tell us whether it is available.

Jo Swinson: I will happily explain. The assessment has been in the public domain for more than eight days on gov.uk. My understanding is that it has been sent to the Vote Office, but we are investigating whether there has been a problem in communication.

Ian Murray: Problems of communication are not the responsibility of the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, the staff in my office in Edinburgh and the office of the shadow Business Secretary have
	been searching for the impact assessment. I think that the Minister might be referring to the equality assessment, not the impact assessment. We will wait for it to be photocopied and handed round.

Graham Allen: When my hon. Friend gets an impact assessment, would he mind popping one over to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, because we are meant to be doing some of the scrutiny of the Bill?

Ian Murray: We are compiling a rather expensive list of photocopying.

Jo Swinson: I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that although he has been searching so hard for the impact assessment, he clearly has not looked on gov.uk, which one might have expected would be an obvious place to look.

Angela Eagle: It should be in the Vote Office.

Jo Swinson: I happily accept that it should be in the Vote Office. We are looking into that now.

Ian Murray: I have looked at the pages of the gov.uk website that relate to the Bill incessantly over the past week or so. The only thing I have been able to find is the equality assessment for the Bill. As far as I am aware, the impact assessment is not there. I am not trying to be difficult with the Minister. If it has been published on the website, we would certainly be talking about its contents.

Jonathan Djanogly: On process and transparency, will the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee who drafted the Opposition amendments? Was it the unions that gave them to him? If so, which unions, or was it union-paid lawyers? That should be reported for the purposes of transparency.

Ian Murray: That kind of intervention is pathetic. Let me put it on the record, in front of the Committee and the country, that I drafted all the Opposition amendments personally because I take an interest in the Bill and it is part of my shadow ministerial portfolio. I did every single bit of the work myself. I also refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have a £2,000 constituency development programme with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. That is as far as my responsibilities go in declaring such issues.
	If the hon. Member for Huntingdon would like a crash course on how to write amendments, I would be happy to meet him this evening. Perhaps he could then write some amendments to make the Bill better. All I would need to do is show him how to spell the word “delete”. That would certainly make the Bill better. [Interruption.] The Government Whip chunters that we should have declared our interests at the start. He will not even tell us how many members the Conservative party has, never mind anything to do with the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We are absolutely transparent and people can look at my entry.

Graham Allen: Given that my hon. Friend has been so busy drafting his amendments, he might not have heard all the proceedings over the past two days. I advise him to be very careful about offering to draft amendments for the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), because he may end up becoming a lobbyist under the definition in the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said the other day, he could end up with the IPSA of lobbying looking at what he is doing. I therefore advise him to tread carefully.

Ian Murray: I am delighted that my hon. Friend intervened, because it allowed me to look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Huntingdon cannot draft his own amendments and would like a crash course from me, given that he received a £21,406 donation from a legal firm only a few years ago. Perhaps it is lobbying him about the Bill. Perhaps he would like to stand up and correct the record.
	I forget where we were, but I will go back to discussing amendment 103 and consequential amendment 121. Amendment 103 would prevent vexatious claims. The Lib Dem Minister should think about that carefully. The principle behind introducing the draconian fee of £1,250 for people who want to seek justice through an employment tribunal was that it would prevent vexatious claims. A Bill that deals with trade union membership lists should therefore deal with the fact that vexatious claims might be made to the certification officer. The amendment would resolve that by giving the certification officer the power to consider whether vexatious claims had been made.
	Secondly, the amendment would prevent third parties from submitting unwarranted queries. Interestingly, third party submissions are mentioned in the consultation but not in the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister could address that point when she comes to the Dispatch Box. The amendment would reduce unnecessary costs for trade unions. The Government parties tend to forget that any additional costs for trade unions from draconian legislation—there is no evidence for the Bill and it does not resolve any identifiable problem—is merely pushed on to the 7.2 million members, whose membership fees are then increased.. Any additional costs hit ordinary workers who are already engulfed by the Government’s cost-of-living crisis.
	The amendment would give the certification officer a mechanism to take complaints—he must ensure that they are verified as competent and of a sufficiently serious nature to warrant the commencement of the complicated process.

Yasmin Qureshi: Does that measure not confirm to the country at large that the Government are not bothered about the ordinary person’s living standards, and that the only people they are concerned about are the rich and powerful?

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend makes the point for me, but it is true that the 7.2 million trade union members will be worse off as a result of the measure, because the burden of any significant additional costs on trade unions from duplicate legislation—they already conform through the Data Protection Act and the Trade Union
	and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—will be passed on to the membership in the form of membership fees.
	I therefore ask the Minister to answer a number of questions on this group of amendments. Has the certification officer asked for the additional powers? Has the certification officer approached the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to say that those powers are necessary, and that he would like the Government to legislate to ensure they are introduced? Has DBIS consulted the certification office, trade unions and other relevant organisations on whether the powers are required and, if so, why? Have there been meetings between certification office and DBIS officials on the subject at which anyone described a need for a problem to be resolved? Have the Government considered the two-out, one-in regulation policy, or demonstrated what measures will be removed to alleviate the burden of regulation on trade unions? Lastly, will the Minister give the certification officer additional resources to deal with the problem? If the answer is yes, there will also be an onus on trade unions to find additional resources.
	Amendment 106, on additional resources, is fairly standard and self-explanatory. The new bureaucratic process will be costly for trade unions, and those costs will ultimately be passed on to the trade union membership. At a time when we should do all we can to encourage a healthy trade union membership in the UK, we must not put the burden of this ideologically driven policy on to those hard-working members. Under the amendment, a charge to cover the costs of production can be levied. There is a reasonable charge for accessing Companies House information on companies—the hon. Member for Huntingdon is interested in those regulations. That principle should be continued in the Bill. I believe the charge is £1 or £2 to access basic information from Companies House. The amendment would make the Bill consistent with section 30(6) of the 1992 Act—this has been discussed at great length by my hon. Friends—which states:
	“Where a member who makes a request for access to a union’s accounting records is informed by the union, before any arrangements are made in pursuance of the request…(a)…of the union’s intention to charge for allowing him to inspect the records to which the request relates, for allowing him to take copies of, or extracts from, those records or for supplying any such copies, and…(b)…of the principles in accordance with which its charges will be determined…then, where the union complies with the request, he is liable to pay the union on demand such amount, not exceeding the reasonable administrative expenses incurred by the union in complying with the request, as is determined in accordance with those principles.”
	Clause 36 is barely consistent with the 1992 Act. The amendment is a way of resolving that and other inconsistencies.
	On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House said:
	“It is a Bill that the Government should be ashamed of. It is incompetent. It is rushed. It has been developed in a high-level meeting between the Prime Minister and his deputy, but with no other consultation. It is a sop to vested interests, an illiberal attack on democratic debate and involvement, and a cheap, partisan and cynical misuse of the legislative process for the Government’s own ends.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 199.]
	The Bill is a partisan attack. Clause 36 and the rest of part 3 of the Bill are completely and utterly unnecessary. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister forget
	that the people they attack are the people who deliver the mail, serve in the shops, teach our children, care for the sick, look after the elderly, clean our streets, assemble our cars and build our bridges. They deserve better than to be subjected to another piece of the Tory ideological jigsaw.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Edward Leigh: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that the amendments are narrowly drafted. I know that hon. Members, when they take part, will not just have a general debate on part 3. That is quite important.

Jonathan Djanogly: I declare any interests I have in the debate arising from my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	Essentially, the question on amendment 103 is whether we tweak the existing system for an automatic annual union membership auditing and inspection regime, or, as Labour wants, we tweak the system in much the same way as the Government propose but so that it comes into play only if a complaint is made under the existing rules. I support the part 3 and clause 36 proposals to aid the verification of union membership. The question is how far the measures should go. On listening to Opposition Members on Second Reading, one might have thought that part 3 constituted a massive attack on union rights, or at least a vehicle for what the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the shadow Leader of the House, has called “cheap” and “partisan” attacks.
	The Bill is nothing of the kind, as is immediately apparent when one looks through the Opposition amendments. Their proposals are mainly low-key and technical, and not political. Admittedly, taken in the round, the Labour amendments could be seen as obstructive amendments that seek either to stymie the role of the certification officer or at least to keep him in his existing box, which is why they should be opposed.

Yasmin Qureshi: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, when the Prime Minister said that the next big scandal to break out in British politics would be lobbying—all hon. Members agreed with him—the Bill was what he envisaged? With all the problems and challenges the country has, does the hon. Gentleman believe that this little piece of legislation is necessary?

Jonathan Djanogly: I will come to the hon. Lady’s point— I might agree to an extent with some of what she says.
	Let us put the measures in context. An emergency motion on the Bill, which was moved by Unison at the TUC conference, has called for an investigation of a policy of non-co-operation with the Bill. Considering the Opposition amendments, that is way over the top, particularly in relation to the part 3 proposals.
	On the other hand, despite the Labour smokescreen, the part 3 provisions are something of a missed opportunity to reform the certification officer role, which has long been in need of reform. The key point is that the certification officer is not a true regulator of unions, as it should be. Rather, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has said, it is like Companies
	House. It checks that filings are made, but does not look at what is contained in those filings. There is a limited power of investigation, but only in relation to administrative matters.
	Therefore, when I look somewhat more charitably at amendment 103, I note that it gives us the chance to debate what the underlying role of the certification officer should be, and to ask what is the purpose of the records kept by unions. Given the surprising reticence of the Government to set out their answers in much detail to date, the amendment serves a useful purpose.
	The clause 36 provisions effectively retain the status quo—that originally created via the Trade Union Act 1984 and replicated in the 1992 Act. One has to look only at the obscure clause numbering in the Bill—it proposes new sections 24ZA to 24ZK—to realise that it is high time properly to review the legislation and, in effect, to start from scratch.

Katy Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that trade unions are one of the most highly regulated institutions in the country—far more so than, say, political parties, which do not have to produce the kind of information the Bill would require? Does he accept that that is because of the ideological wish, from certain people involved in politics, to regulate trade unions highly? That sits ill at ease with some of the comments made regularly by Government Members about cutting red tape.

Jonathan Djanogly: I actually think the opposite. I will be upfront about this. In the previous Parliament I did a lot of work on regulatory issues—the Companies Act 2006 and the Legal Services Act 2007, which was a major piece of legislation. That work was done, for the most part, on a consensual basis by the two sides of the House, and some pretty good laws were passed. My point is that the trade union laws were passed in the mid-1980s and are in serious need of reform and review.

Andrew Gwynne: The hon. Gentleman says that the law is in need of review and change, but can he answer one simple question? What is the problem that these amendments and provisions are seeking to address? That is not clear me.

Jonathan Djanogly: I answered that specifically in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I have to say that one does wonder why we are missing this opportunity for reform; I am not sure. Perhaps it is because the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is packed with Liberal Democrat Ministers. Who knows? Perhaps it is the Government’s more general reluctance to look at legislation governing unions and industrial relations. In any event, the toothless nature of the certification officer remains, despite so much having changed since 1984. For example, on the membership register, in the mid-1980s membership records were for the most part probably kept on paper. Official management and database IT systems were not very developed. E-mail did not exist for everyday use and communications with members and voting had to be in person or by post. Of course, postal voting at that time was seen as a novel
	idea to be used against the intimidation of members at the time of union votes—union intimidation being rife at the time.
	There is another key difference between then and now. Unions are, in general, becoming fewer in number, but far larger and more general than in the 1980s.

Ian Lavery: The hon. Gentleman mentions union intimidation. Does he want to provide some examples of his experience of union intimidation?

Edward Leigh: Order. I do not think we need to get into these wider areas. I repeat that this is a narrow amendment and that the clause itself is very narrow.

Jonathan Djanogly: Unison and Unite now account for approximately 40% of total union membership. As such, it follows that the larger unions are becoming increasingly powerful politically and economically, and with power comes responsibility and the duty to be accountable. We can make a comparison with companies and the difference between how private and public companies are regulated. It is therefore right that union obligations to administrate themselves correctly, such as membership records, are subject to a suitable level of oversight and scrutiny, and the clause provides for that. I note that the Labour party seems to accept the number of 10,000 as appropriate for the higher level of regulation to apply.

David Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. Will he answer the question I asked my hon. Friend on the Front Bench? If there is such a problem, why has the certification officer not raised it? Has he come to the House and said, “I’m really not happy because the unions are not staying within the remit”? Has that been the case? I do not believe it has.

Jonathan Djanogly: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the last time I visited the certification office was more than half a dozen years ago, so I am not totally up on what the latest one is thinking. However, from my experience of looking into the matter in detail—the regulations and laws have not changed—I know that the certification office has very limited powers. In fact, most people would not even see it as a regulator; rather, as I said, it is more like a Companies House collection box than anything else.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. Regarding his involvement with the certification officer, albeit several years ago, does he have any evidence that the current membership figures for trade unions are incorrect and therefore require the change in law that is being suggested?

Jonathan Djanogly: That is not an issue I have investigated. As I said, complaints emanate from members of unions, not from people outside unions, and I think that that is the wrong way to be going about such an issue.
	Let us step back and look at the clause in the round. There is a fundamental question which, to be fair, was picked up by the Opposition on Second Reading and the hon. Member for Edinburgh South today, and it is implied by amendment 103: we need better clarification from the Government on the intention of these clauses.
	In the 1983 Government Green Paper, it was specifically claimed that decisions made by unions could be contrary to the wishes of their members and that union leaders often appeared not to be responsible to their members. The then Government made the case that legislation could limit malpractice, such as ballot rigging and forgery.
	What, therefore, are we trying to do with improved membership registers? Are we concerned about the validity of strike ballots where key public services, such as London trains, are disrupted by a simple majority of an overall minority of members voting? Is there concern that ballot rigging is still going on because of poor membership records? Let us remember that the certification officer has very limited powers in such situations, and that the few powers he does have can be triggered only by existing union members, not by the public who are unable to get to work.

Ian Lavery: The Chair said that we were perhaps veering off the subject, but I have to come back to the serious allegations the hon. Gentleman is making. If someone makes serious allegations in the House, they should be big enough to present evidence. Where has there been evidence of ballot rigging in the trade union movement? The trade union movement is an extremely transparent and democratic organisation.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman is clearly not listening to what I have been saying. I have not been saying that there has been ballot rigging. In fact, in some ways I think I am helping his case by saying that we need to look more carefully at the purpose behind the clause. This would be a good opportunity for the Government to give at least a sense of direction on part 3 about their intentions on strike balloting. Perhaps that purpose is related to party funding, given that the previous part of the Bill relates to election funding. If that is so, why are we not giving the certification officer the power to check that the political opt-out is clearly stated on the union membership application form—that has clearly not always been the case—let alone going the further step, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition no less, of reversing the position to an opt-in?
	Despite the Opposition’s position being muddied following the Leader of the Opposition’s speech at this week’s TUC conference, why are the Opposition not taking this opportunity to amend the Bill to that effect? This is a pressing issue, not least because the majority of union members do not even vote for the Labour party. Even if such reform needs more time to be formulated, why cannot the Government indicate their intentions for party funding as a result of improved membership records?
	The clause deals specifically with auditing membership numbers, but what about overseeing matters in the context of the return as a whole, let alone dealing with issues of client care or quality of service? The provisions do not even tighten up the definition of what membership means, which would be helpful, if that is what is to be audited.

Ian Murray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is reeling off a list of potential obligations on a trade union with regard to its members. Does he
	not think that if a trade union was not compliant with obligations under customer service and so on, the member would just simply leave?

Jonathan Djanogly: Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. If we are to have the provision to audit members, we should know what “member” means. This is a fundamental omission, as was shown with the miners’ compensation scheme.
	In that situation, certain unions created a new class of “associate membership”, with no rights other than the right for the claimants to be referred to the union-picked no win, no fee lawyers, from whom the unions then took a kickback commission. The scam was uncovered and the lawyers were heavily penalised by their regulators. However, not—

Edward Leigh: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some leeway, but if he looks—as I know he has: he is a very skilful Member—he will see that this is a narrowly drafted clause. Will he please now restrict himself to the amendments and the duty to provide membership audit certificates, and not give a long history of the trade union movement?

Jonathan Djanogly: Thank you for that clarification, Sir Edward.
	The point of amendment 103 is to ask the purpose of the clause, and that is right. If the purpose is to deal with auditing members, perhaps we should be talking about what constitutes a member and what is to be audited. Would it include the associated membership that we saw in the miners compensation scheme, for instance? Should the audit include a description of their rights as members? Alternatively, do we want to know accurately the number of members, so that this can be tied to union political contributions? If so, the Bill might not be as effective as some people think. That is because trade unions have not necessarily been affiliating the same number of members as have been contributing to the political fund. They may affiliate phantom members in order to get more union votes on Labour party matters. I am unsure what effect auditing membership numbers would have in that situation, other than to verify how bizarre Labour’s relationship with the unions can be. Again, however, a sense of direction for future reform from the Government would be helpful.
	I support this legislation, because I can see nothing to object to in principle—it basically just repeats and fortifies what has been around since the 1980s. I hope that hon. Members do not take what I have said as anti-union, because I am not anti-union. However, I strongly believe that union law is way behind the times and desperately in need of reform. Can anyone really argue that legislation and procedural regulations passed in the mid 1980s are still adequate now? Although I disagree with Labour’s amendment 103, I appreciate its wider implication of showing up the lack of Government purpose and direction behind these provisions. Given the time the coalition Government have had to formulate policy on these key issues, which have a significant impact on the people of this country, we could and should be doing much better. This is a missed opportunity to reform industrial relations law.

Yasmin Qureshi: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), like others, will be aware from when he did his law degree—as I am from when I did mine—that there are three golden principles running through our judicial system that come into play when judges interpret legislation. The first is the mischief rule, which asks what mischief the law was introduced to deal with; the second is the golden rule, which means generously interpreting a piece of legislation; and the third is the literal rule, which means interpreting it literally. That is where I would like to start with the amendment and these provisions.
	I hope you will forgive me, Sir Edward, if I digress a little—I will not take up too much time—but we were told that the reason for introducing a lobbying Bill was that there was a significant problem with lobbying in this country. Everyone was talking about the next scandal being lobbying, but we were in fact talking about, for example, somebody being paid—a Member of Parliament, say, or somebody else—to ask questions that are not within the rules. We were also talking about people who have access to Ministers and are able to campaign and lobby for private companies—for example, Lynton Crosby and people like that. What we were talking about was money changing hands and others not knowing what was happening. That was what was meant by the scandalous part of lobbying. As a Member of Parliament, I should not be asking questions in the House or raising issues because somebody is sponsoring me or giving me money to line someone else’s pockets, make a company richer or help it to secure a contract that it should perhaps not have.
	“Lobbying” refers to those types of situation; sadly, this Bill does not really deal with any of them. Part 1, which deals with consultant lobbyists, catches only about 1% of those concerned—it would not catch people like Lynton Crosby. Part 2 deals with charities and voluntary organisations. If somebody from a cancer charity comes to speak to me about—

Edward Leigh: Order. The hon. Lady is introducing her speech. I give a certain latitude, but I know that, as a skilful Member, she will soon get on to audit certification.

Yasmin Qureshi: I will move on swiftly, Sir Edward.
	Let me return to the trade union aspect. The provisions in this Bill have been designed just to cause more bureaucratic headaches for trade unions. All they mean is that trade unions will have to spend more of their members’ money—let us remember that these are the 7.2 million ordinary working people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) pointed out, who are members of trade unions and pay their subs. The Bill would mean that trade unions had to spend more money on trying to comply with the system. Surely that cannot be right. Trying to put that provision in legislation dealing with lobbying as a whole is completely wrong. It is unfair. What is the mischief that the Government are trying to deal with? The mischief is big money and corporate enterprises, yet this legislation does nothing to address such lobbying. All it does is impose a financial burden on unions that rely solely on subs from their members.
	The Government are often accused of being out of touch and only looking after the rich and powerful. Surely it is about time they sent out the message that actually they do care about the ordinary person and are perturbed that their living standards and wages are going down. The Prime Minister was not willing to acknowledge those issues at Prime Minister’s questions. The issue of living conditions was put to him time and again, and he was asked about the living wage, yet he refused to answer or to acknowledge the fact that people’s living standards have gone down. We are talking about the same people who have to pay their trade union subs out of their own pay packets. And before anyone says, “Why are they giving the trade unions their hard-earned money?”, I will tell them the reason. In the workplace, the only person a worker can rely on if things get hard is their trade union representative.

Brian Binley: Having left school at 15 and been a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, before going on to found two businesses, I can tell the hon. Lady that small businesses always need to look after their employees, because they rely on them so heavily. If a business gets a good employee, it needs to keep hold of them, so there is a lot more care in the workplace than she is suggesting. Would she accept that?

Yasmin Qureshi: I accept that there are many responsible employers, small as well as large, but the hon. Gentleman will know that many are not responsible. He must also know that there are workplace situations where people have problems, and we cannot take away from that. For most people, the reason they give their hard-earned money to the trade union movement—it is not compulsory: nobody in the workplace has to be a member if they do not want to—is that if there is a problem in the workplace, they will have someone to go to. We know from our country’s history that, over the years, issues of sex discrimination, equality legislation, and health and safety have often been dealt with by members going to their trade unions.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is coming to the nub of some of the concerns about the provisions we are debating. Some of the information now being sought is sensitive, personal information, and in some of the workplace situations that she is describing, there is a concern—perceived or, in some cases, actual—about people being victimised because of their association with trade unions or, worse still, blacklisted.

Yasmin Qureshi: I completely agree with what my hon. Friend says about blacklisting and intimidation.
	When people have a problem, they go to their trade union because that is the only body in the workplace that can assist them. Let us remember some of the issues that the trade unions have been arguing for over the years. Conservative Members constantly heap abuse on the unions—they talk about Unite and the other unions—but let me remind the Committee of some of the things the unions have campaigned for throughout their history.
	The trade unions campaigned for proper wages. What is wrong with that? What is criminal or immoral about that? When the industrial revolution started, wage levels
	were very low, given the work that people had to do. Wages have gone up over the years, but even now it is impossible for most people to survive on the minimum wage. The unions are therefore campaigning for a living wage. What is wrong with that? I am proud of the Labour party’s links with the trade unions, and of the fact that we are actively involved with them. At the end of the day, trade unions represent ordinary working people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South said earlier, these are the people who cook and serve the food, who work in shops and who clean our streets, our offices and our toilets. They do the worst possible jobs. They also work in the NHS and the education system.

Iain McKenzie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason for including clause 36 in the Bill is completely transparent? It is clear from the contributions from those on the Government Benches that its purpose is to use up union resources, union time and union funds. It is a veiled attack on the trade unions.

Yasmin Qureshi: rose—

Edward Leigh: Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to that point, may I suggest that she will want to return to the subject of audit certification?

Yasmin Qureshi: I will come to that, Sir Edward. The need for certification will cause financial harm to the unions, and we do not need it. It will not deal with the mischief that the legislation on lobbying was supposed to address. All it will do is impose an unfair financial burden on the trade unions, which rely on the subscriptions of ordinary members.
	Derisory comments are constantly being made about the trade unions, but it is important to remind ourselves what they are arguing for. I get letters from unions lobbying me. For example, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers contacted me when there was talk of Sunday working during the Olympics. I also get letters from trade unions about pension rights, maternity rights, the minimum wage, health and safety, living conditions and better terms and conditions. What is there to be ashamed of about those things? What is wrong with a body arguing for those things?
	Why are Conservative Members always having a go at the unions? They make it sound as though the unions are some kind of sinister organisations, but they are not. They are full of ordinary working people, and they have always fought for working people’s rights. The Conservatives should be championing the trade unions, rather than making derisory remarks about them and insulting them in the Chamber. This legislation is a clear example of their vindictive attitude towards the trade unions. The unions do not have a lot of money in the first place, but what they have will now be wasted on this unnecessary bureaucratic burden. The obligation that the Government are proposing will not deal with the mischief that the lobbying Bill is trying to deal with. That mischief relates to big business, to sinister deals and to cash being passed in underhand ways. That is what we are trying to deal with, but the Bill categorically fails on every single level.
	This last part of the Bill illustrates the Government’s pure vindictiveness, and it has no purpose. We should all reject it. All Members of Parliament should vote against this legislation, and particularly against part 3. If Members really care about working people, as they all say they do, they should not allow this additional and unnecessary burden to be imposed on the trade unions. It will not deal with the mischief that the Bill was supposed to address.

Stephen McPartland: It is a real pleasure to follow the impassioned speech of the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), although I must point out that no one has a monopoly on caring about working people. I shall to confine my remarks to clause 36.
	I have discovered over the past three days that I am probably one of the most optimistic Members of the House, because I believe that the purposes of the Bill are very different from those suggested in some of the narratives that we have been hearing. Clause 36 introduces a clear duty to provide a membership audit certificate. I note with interest that if a union has fewer than 10,000 members, it can self-certify. Only unions with more than that number will need to certify.
	I appreciate that there has been a certain amount of jolliness in the Chamber—

Ian Murray: Jolliness?

Stephen McPartland: Some Members have been teasing the Conservative party about its refusal to publish its membership figures. Clause 36 clearly states that unions with fewer than 10,000 members can self-certify. However, a Conservative party association with more than a certain amount of money will have to send its information to the Electoral Commission. That information will include membership numbers, but if they are below a certain level, there will be no need to send it. This part of the Bill therefore contains very similar provisions to those that are already in place for members of political parties, as well as trade unions.
	It has been suggested that no complaints have been made under the present arrangements for a number of years. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) mentioned the possibility that people who were not union members were unable to make a complaint at the moment. I stand here as a friend of the unions. I am happy to work with them, and I am proud of the union members who come to see me, whether as union members or members of local communities or organisations. A number of members of my family are members of unions. I am also happy to work with the national unions on a range of issues—

Iain Wright: Are you a union member?

Stephen McPartland: I am not actually a member of trade union, and I never have been. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are tempting me to stray from the point. Within a few weeks, however, there will no doubt be an announcement and I will be working closely with one of the national unions, and I might well join it as a result of the work that we do together.
	The perception of clause 36 is that it is a massive attack on the trade union movement, but that is not its purpose.

Katy Clark: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are one of the only European countries that does not have a right to strike. Clause 36 comes on top of a whole range of other pieces of trade union legislation, much of which has been designed to be used in the courts by employers trying to get injunctions to stop strike action. Often, when those cases come before a full court, the employers are unsuccessful, even though they might have been successful in getting the strike stopped at the initial stage. Does the hon. Gentleman think that this clause has been designed to create yet another hurdle for the trade unions to get over before they can take lawful industrial action?

Stephen McPartland: The short answer is no. Clause 36 introduces a duty to provide a membership audit certificate. I genuinely cannot imagine that many of the unions will be bothered by it. The reality is that they all want to know where their members are so that they can communicate with them. Most unions do not send letters out to their members simply asking them to take strike action. They also want to sell them services and to make the union a part of their lives.

Ian Murray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I shall pass a membership form to him before the end of the debate. Amendment 103 allows for clause 36 to be implemented. All it does is give the certification officer the power to take out vexatious claims and to decide whether the draconian and expensive measures in the rest of the Bill should be enacted.

Stephen McPartland: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Local councils around the country have to confront a number of issues with vexatious claims and are currently struggling under the freedom of information rules introduced by the previous Government. It may well be an issue that needs to be looked at further. It is a law of unintended consequences, however, and if there have been only six complaints in the last 10 years, I cannot imagine that there would have been many vexatious claims.
	In most small workplace environments, a large proportion of the employees are not union members. If they are, they are often members of a variety of different unions. Most of those employees do not want to cross a picket line and have no intention of doing so. That can be a real emotional struggle for them; I saw that a lot when I was growing up in Liverpool. If a person is being called out on strike by union members in the area but does not want to strike, I think it is perfectly acceptable for such an employee who is not a union member to be expected not to cross the picket line. However, it is perfectly acceptable for them to question whether the ballot was accurate. There is personal and social pressure put on people and it is understandable.

David Anderson: The person that the hon. Gentleman is talking about has that right now. There is no point in this legislation, because the provisions are already in place: the individual can already do exactly what the
	hon. Gentleman says. Legislation was deliberately set up that way by Governments in the 1980s to undermine the ability of unions to take industrial action. It is already law; we do not need this new law.

Stephen McPartland: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful intervention. I grew up in Liverpool in the 1980s and I remember a great deal of industrial action. I survived. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said that the purpose of the legislation is to take things back to the 1980s so that that exists as the status quo now. I am not particularly interested in the ideological arguments going back and forth across the Committee. I genuinely believe that the purpose of clause 36 is to help people who feel that they want to make a complaint but cannot. I heard the shadow Minister talk earlier from the Dispatch Box about the possibility of a charge of £1 or £2 being exercised in respect of clause 36. I imagine that most trade unions would hate that because it would probably cost more to administer the charge than it would to send off the certificate.
	The basic purpose of clause 36 boils down to transparency; it innocently says that trade unions need to know where their members are. There is a massive reality gap here. We all know from the electoral register, which we deal with every single year in all our walks of life, that the number of people moving in and out of constituencies when they move home is huge.

Ian Lavery: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the points he is raising are already covered by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992? Everything that he is talking about is already covered.

Stephen McPartland: I am delighted that hon. Members believe that everything I have said is already covered by various legislation. I am even more pleased that they are not objecting to what I have said.

Yasmin Qureshi: The hon. Gentleman referred to the ’80s, but there has been a great deal of trade union law since that time that deals with all the issues that he has raised. He should take it from me that the particular provision we are debating does not deal with any of the matters with which he was concerned; as I say, the laws governing that already exist.

Stephen McPartland: I am delighted to hear that hon. Members believe that the issues I am raising have already been dealt with. That is fantastic news. However, if those issues are already dealt with, I see no reason for people to be arguing that there is no reason for this part of the Bill; I see no reason to be against it. There seems to be a lot of anger being expressed.
	Not all Government Members have an issue with trade unions or trade unionists. Whenever anybody mentions the words “trade union”, it seems as if we have to have an ideological argument between the two sides of the House. I do not agree with that. We should look at the facts, and the facts relating to clause 36 are very simple: there is a duty to provide a membership audit certificate if a union has more than 10,000 members; otherwise people can self-certify.

John Cryer: There is a genuine point—he may or may not have taken it on board—about the big general unions. Because of the changing nature of work and the
	increasing casualisation of the work force, it is possible for unions to lose as much as 12% of their membership during the course of a year, so they will have to recruit 12% just to stand still. Under those circumstances, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman can imagine, keeping bang-up-to-date records is extremely difficult.

Stephen McPartland: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The biggest challenge those unions face—it is perhaps a reason why the Bill might help them focus more resources on the issue—is simply the fact that people move home. It is not a matter of losing members of the trade union movement; it is simply a matter of trade unionists moving house between different areas. That creates a massive turnover. We all have experience of moving house and know we have to pay the Royal Mail a fee to redirect our mail for a year. Moving home is a big issue; it is one of the key problems surrounding the clause. Clause 36 encourages the focusing of more union resources on tackling the problems of membership turnover.

Katy Clark: Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to look at how much this will cost the trade unions? Does he know how much they will have to spend on this exercise?

Stephen McPartland: The hon. Lady will be delighted to know that I read the impact assessment, so I understand that it will cost approximately 6p per member, which does not seem to be exorbitant. [Interruption.] I am sure we can argue about that when we get to a different part of the Bill, but I am going to keep my remarks focused on clause 36 as our Chairman would like—namely, the duty to provide a membership audit certificate. I keep repeating the point that clause 36 deals with a duty to provide a membership audit certificate. I do not see what the problem is with providing such a certificate. I cannot imagine why the unions would object to it.

Iain McKenzie: The hon. Gentleman is most gracious in taking interventions. He said that he agreed that legislation might already be in place to deal with the problem. His argument was to ask why we should vote against the provisions if they are already in place, but why would he vote for duplication?

Stephen McPartland: I am not voting for duplication. I am going to vote for this part of the Bill. I am being informed that legislation is already in place, but I was probably at school at that time. I would love to accept what the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members say, but I am not able to trust them. That is why I am going to vote for this part of the Bill. It is nothing personal. It is just that there has been a lot of discussion going back and forth across the Committee, but I like to vote on the facts, and the facts before me today relate to this part of Bill.
	I am sure that the Chairman will be grateful to know that I am about to bring my remarks to a close. We should try to reduce some of the rhetoric. This is not an ideological argument and the provisions are not a massive attack on the trade union movement—nobody wants to see that. Trade union members are fantastic members of our society, and the trade unions have been a fantastic vehicle for societal change throughout the ages. I am happy to work with them on a variety of occasions—
	working alongside them, for example, at charity events in my constituency or when the national unions work on issues that are important to their members such as fair pay, tax transparency or a range of other issues.

John Healey: It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). He declared himself an optimist about the purposes of this part of the Bill and clause 36 in particular. The problem with the Bill, as well as with this particular provision, is the gap between the declared purposes and the provisions themselves. In clause 36, the problem is that the purposes are not clear at all.
	In its confused content and its incompetent and chaotic handling, this whole Bill reminds me of a previous piece of legislation that the Leader of the House introduced—the Health and Social Care Bill. I led the opposition to that Bill. It was a Bill without allies and with a remarkable range of critics that saw Lord Tebbit and the trade unions finding common ground. The Leader of House, when he was Health Secretary, was forced to pause, review and reflect upon that Bill. The same problems with this Bill surely call for the same solution.
	Let me now deal specifically with clause 36 and the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, told us that his Committee had considered the White Paper, the forerunner of the Bill, and that there had been no mention of part 3 or of trade unions. He said that, according to his calculations, this part of the Bill—including clause 36—had been published the day before the summer recess, eight working days before we were required to consider it in Committee today, and he rightly pointed out that the task of scrutinising these provisions would therefore fall to the other House.
	I am not prepared to accept that, and the Committee should not be prepared to accept it either. It is part of our duty in a Committee stage such as this to exercise scrutiny in the House of Commons, but we have been unable to do so. We have been unable to do so because of the time scale, because of the lack of any wider consultation, and indeed, as we have heard this afternoon, because of the Government’s failure to provide the Committee even with some of the most basic documentation before asking it to consider the Bill. Such a degree of confusion and incompetence on the part of Ministers is unacceptable.

Andrew Gwynne: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend’s critique of the legislation and, in particular, with what he is saying about clause 36, but is not the position even worse than he is suggesting? The Government have failed to explain to the House why the changes are necessary in the first place. We have not got a clue what problem they are trying to solve.

John Healey: I shall respond to my hon. Friend’s intervention in a moment. I want my speech to reflect what has been said in the debate so far, and the point that he has made has already begun to emerge during our discussion of clause 36 and the amendments.
	Another point has emerged as well, and it constitutes a direct challenge to Ministers. The front of the Bill bears the following declaration from the Leader of the House:
	“In my view the provisions of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”
	Members of Parliament and legal experts outside the House have rightly asked whether article 8 of the convention, in particular, is not confounded by the provisions of clause 36. The clause gives the certification officer, or any investigator whom he may appoint, sweeping powers of access to very personal individual information about trade union members, which could potentially contravene article 8 and the right to privacy. As I think the Committee will appreciate, union members are rightly concerned and sensitive about the issue, given the recent history of blacklisting and discrimination on the basis of trade union membership or activity. What I should like the Minister to do when he responds to the debate—

Tom Brake: She.

John Healey: What I should like the Minister to do when she responds to the debate is give the Committee a commitment that she will publish, or place in the Library of the House, the legal advice on which the Leader of the House’s statement on the front of the Bill is based, so that we can lay that concern to rest.
	Let me now turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) asked what was the problem with which clause 36, and part 3 as a whole, had been designed to deal. Even the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) rightly asked the same question, albeit in different terms. He asked what intention was behind the provisions in clause 36. Our debate so far has clearly shown that there is no evidence of a problem, that there is no public call for these changes, and that there is no principled case for them. We can only conclude that the intention, or the purpose, of the clause is to tighten the legislative leash on trade unions and their ability to take proper, lawful industrial action.
	I must inform Ministers that last year industrial action was at an almost record low. The level was very low throughout the 13 Labour years, but last year it was only a quarter of the level that it was in 1996, the last year of the last Tory Government. In other words, four times more days were lost through industrial action in 1996 than was the case last year. Wide-scale industrial action is not a problem in this country, and for that reason any case that might honestly be built and presented on the basis of industrial action would clearly be flawed. My hon. Friends who are members, and active members, of trade unions would certainly agree with that.

Brian Binley: I am slightly confused by the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, given what we have heard from many leading trade unionists about the possibility of strikes over the next six months. Does he not recognise that that poses a sizeable danger to the country’s economy,
	or is he telling me that the strikes will not happen because what the trade union leaders are saying is a sham?

Edward Leigh: Order. I hope the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) will not stray too far down that road, and will return to the subject of the clause and amendments. He has performed very skilfully so far.

John Healey: Indeed so, Sir Edward.
	As a former member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the steps, linked to the clause, that any union needs to take before contemplating industrial action are already highly complex. They are legally specified, and they set a number of very high hurdles for any group of trade union members who wish to consider industrial action. As for his general point, it is often the determination of union members to take industrial action if necessary, and as a last resort, that causes employers to see sense, negotiate properly and, in many cases, solve the problems at hand.
	Let me sum up the position. The number of days lost to strike action is at a near all-time low. Industrial action is always a last resort. The series of legislative steps that any group of trade union members must take before engaging in lawful industrial action are already highly complex, lengthy and tightly specified in law, but clause 36 will make that specification much tighter, and will make it much more difficult for unions to take such action. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) pointed out, there is no legal right to strike in this country, and any industrial action lays a trade union open to being sued for inducing and encouraging members to breach their employment contracts. It is only the immunity from being sued, which comes from following all the steps specified in existing legislation, that will be made more difficult by the provisions in clause 36.
	Too often in recent years, employers—not just large employers such as Balfour Beatty, Serco and London Midland—instead of dealing with the grievance at hand, and instead of consulting, negotiating and discussing the problems that they face with their own employees and dealing with the dispute, have looked for legal ground to try to prevent any industrial action through the law courts. The duty in clause 36 to provide the membership audits and certificates, and the potential investigations on the back of any complaints under the auspices of the certification officer, are likely to make it much easier for employers to find legal grounds and to take legal action to prevent union members from taking proper, legitimate industrial action. Clause 36 will create a mountain of data and paperwork which will be at the fingertips of employers well in advance of any particular risk of industrial action or dispute.

Yasmin Qureshi: Is that not exactly what the Government intend, so that, apart from causing financial difficulties, this Bill can be used by employers to hit out at employees?

John Healey: I think my hon. Friend is right, but our problem is that we are having to intuit the intention behind these provisions and this clause because the Government have not supplied evidence of a problem,
	have not supplied a purpose for these provisions, and have not supplied any reason for this unreasonable tightening of the legislation.

John Cryer: My right hon. Friend talked about legal action being taken against trade unions. The other problem is that an employer has six years in which to take that legal action. I can remember dealing with cases where a legal firm said, “Let the ballot and industrial action go ahead because we then have six years during which, at any point, we can take legal action against the union.”

John Healey: My hon. Friend has more experience in this area than I have, and he is right to point that out, and he might have gone on to say, “And what a stark disparity with the legal requirements on trade unions to take any industrial action they may have balloted upon within days, not years, and then to give further fresh notice to the employer before the start of that industrial action.” The legislation is already hugely unbalanced and is, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) argued, ripe for reform—although I think he and I would disagree on the nature of the reform that is required.
	The Opposition’s arguments against this clause and my particular objections are clear, and our amendments highlight them. Regardless of what the Government are prepared to say about its purpose now, it is designed to tighten the current legislation binding trade unions. It is designed to make it more difficult for trade unions to take proper legal, legitimate industrial action and in particular for members facing problems in their workplace to stand up to an employer as a last resort and say, “You’re treating us in such an unfair, discriminatory and unacceptable way that we are prepared to take industrial action as a last resort.” If we allow this provision and this part of the Bill to proceed unamended it will become much more difficult for ordinary people as union members in the workplace to stand up for themselves through their union against their employer.

Iain McKenzie: I will restrict my remarks to clause 36 and to supporting our amendments. As we have heard over the past few days, this is a bad Bill and it would be poor legislation. Part 3 and clause 36 have clearly been ill thought out and ill conceived by the Government—but they have clearly thought through what they want to achieve. These measures would achieve their goals, but, unfortunately, they are not the goals a lobbying Bill should set out to achieve.
	To compound things, this Bill is being rushed through Parliament at a speed that would make Usain Bolt envious. Opposition Members repeatedly ask, “Why the hurry? Why can’t we take a bit of time to scrutinise this Bill and get it right?” There has been no consultation on the Bill either, which has been highlighted.

David Anderson: My hon. Friend asks, “Why the hurry?” Does he agree that it is because the Government hope to get this Bill on to the statute book so that for 12 months from 8 May next year lobbying groups and trade unions will find that their hands are tied in criticising the Government’s record and reminding the people of this country what a dire mess they have got them into? They are trying to hide that from the public.

Iain McKenzie: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Bill and clause 36 have come under sustained criticism from just about everyone except those on the Government Benches. This part of the Bill has led to my inbox being filled—and, I am sure, other Members’ inboxes, too. The messages I have received have come not only from trade union activists, but from people throughout my constituency who are concerned about what this Bill, and this part of it in particular, will mean for them.
	This part of the Bill seeks to change the legal requirements in relation to trade unions’ obligations to keep their lists of members up to date, as if it would somehow be of benefit to unions not to keep their membership records up to date. Trade unions continually communicate with their members, as I know as a trade unionist myself; I continually receive mailings from my trade union. They clearly know who their members are and how to contact them, therefore, so the claims made by Government Members that their records might be incorrect or they might have phantom members are beyond belief.
	There are concerns about membership data and security and the possibility of the blacklisting of trade union members. There are data protection issues, therefore, and what about people’s right to privacy? In the 1980s I was employed in the private sector and my employer at that time would have been delighted to get its hands on a list of the trade union members among its employees. Instead, it had to put feelers out and, believe it or not, engage people to take photographs.

Julie Elliott: In some cases where employers are not the best employers, these provisions will leave trade union members very vulnerable, and certainly more vulnerable than they are now.

Iain McKenzie: My hon. Friend is right; that would be a consequence of this Bill. In the past, unscrupulous employers would go to any lengths to find out which of their employees were trade union members. I recall being photographed entering trade union meetings by my employer. It would have saved a great deal of money if it had been able to get its hands on these lists.
	“Reveal your membership,” the unions are told, on the basis of demanding accuracy.

Hywel Francis: I have made this point previously, but I want to make it again in the context of what my hon. Friend is saying. The Deputy Leader of the House has been seen denying this from a sedentary position, but yesterday he did not adequately respond to a question I asked about the Government’s failure to produce a human rights memorandum on this Bill. If they had produced one, they would have had to address this fundamental question of privacy.

Iain McKenzie: My hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point on the privacy issue. It seems that those on the Government Benches might somehow be surprised to learn that there are still employers who do not welcome trade union membership or activity among their employees, and they would be delighted to have these records at hand. As we have heard, the Conservatives will not reveal how many members they have.
	These proposals will mean significant additional bureaucracy for unions. We have heard about the costs of that, and they will escalate considerably for an organisation with 1 million or more members. The Government’s intentions are transparent. As we have heard from Government Members, they want to tie the hands of the trade unions. They want to put a ball and chain around the train unions’ ankles and to hamper their activities. This comes from a Government who said they wanted to cut red tape, and yet here they are imposing it on others.
	I have not heard any general objection from the TUC to unions being able to provide regular membership figures to the certification officer. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who has now left the Chamber, suggested that the certification officer is toothless, when it has been some six years since he visited the certification officer and he was unable to give any idea as to how many times the certification officer had been challenged for lack of action or for being toothless. After all, we know that the trade unions supply membership lists to ACAS, especially when triggering recognition of a ballot in the workplace. I have often found out that the reluctance to hand over accurate lists comes from the employers; they have refused to supply ACAS with lists of their employees to match things up with the trade unions so that they could verify that they indeed had the membership numbers to trigger a ballot. Trade unions have never held back their membership lists; they are happy to give them over, but only if they have privacy for their members and the assurance that the lists will not be handed over. ACAS, of course, gives them that assurance.
	These changes will affect the 149 trade unions, of which, as we know, only about 16 are affiliated to the Labour party. The changes are clearly uncalled for and, as I have said, they are designed to hamper the unions and tie them up with red tape, which the Government have consistently said they want to get rid of. They came into power saying that they would eliminate as much red tape as possible.
	The Government are not using the Bill to tackle the real problems of lobbying. Just about every member of the British public is asking what problem this part of the Bill is designed to tackle, and Labour Members have repeatedly asked that question. We are unable to discern the problem that this part is meant to remedy in its entirety. As we have heard, unions already have a statutory duty to maintain a register of members’ names and addresses so far as is reasonably practicable. Many members move house or pass away. The lists are as accurate as membership lists can be, as the trade unions do update them. No membership organisation of any size can ever have a perfect membership list, as such a list will contain errors. It is up to the individual members to make the union aware of changes. How often have we not passed on a change of address, getting around to doing so only later?

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is making an incredibly compelling speech about the deficiencies of clause 36 and he is right to do so, because the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 states clearly that the onus is on the member to tell the trade union that they have changed address. If the member does not tell the union that, the membership list is therefore deficient.

Iain McKenzie: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
	Recent revelations about blacklisting and everything that is happening in that respect are a worry to many trade union members, who would see these membership lists as being available to be passed around with ease, with all the consequences that that entails. I think that the entire House is united in condemning blacklisting, so why are we being asked to assist the ease by which information can be gathered to continue the practice of blacklisting? If hon. Members had seen the trawls that the people who compile these lists go through, they would realise that we are making it very easy to put a list together, pass it on and make money out of branding other people as “trade union activists” and so on. I ask the Government to reconsider this part of the Bill and to adopt our amendments.

John McDonnell: I think we misinterpreted the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), because what he said was extremely supportive. He went to what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) described as the crux of the Bill, asking why it is here. The hon. Gentleman was asking his own Front Benchers, “What the hell are we doing?” As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and others have asked, what mischief does this part of the Bill seek to address? I really tried to find out what the Government’s thinking is, so I looked at what they said in the consultation paper, which was published in July. The first reason they put forward for this move was as follows:
	“As membership organisations, it is important that trade union decisions reflect the will of all their members.”
	If that is the case, does it mean that we are now going to legislate in respect of all membership organisations? Sir Edward, you are a member of the Roman Catholic Church and if we are going to do that, we might well introduce legislation to see whether the Catholic Church is following the laity’s views.
	Why does this provision apply to trade unions alone? Next, the Government identify trade unions for this special legislation because:
	“Trade union activity has the potential to affect the daily lives of members”.
	With the greatest respect, so too does the activity of the Roman Catholic Church, the CBI and the Institute of Directors. So why are we focusing on this particular membership organisation? As has been said, the reason is that this legislation is really about trying to impede the operations of the trade unions in this country. Government Members might argue that this measure has minimum cost and minimum imposition of roles and responsibilities on trade unions. The impact study makes an assessment that there will be only 6p of additional cost, although that is still 6p. However, it also says, straightforwardly, that the risks are that this will displace core trade union work. It will do that; trade unions will have to devote their time and energies to this and it will therefore displace their core trade union work of representing their members. So it is about impeding the real role of trade unions.

Julie Elliott: Does my hon. Friend agree that this part of the Bill is unnecessary legislation and that it is just an attack on trade union members going about their daily
	business and being active trade unionists? It is an attack on ordinary working people standing up for their rights in the workplace.

John McDonnell: That is exactly what it is. I am speaking on the clause standing part, as well as to the amendment, Sir Edward, because we have to understand what this clause means. I cannot, for the life of me, interpret it other than in the way my hon. Friend has just done. It is an attack specifically on the role of trade unionists and their rights to fulfil their responsibilities.
	We have seen the operation of challenges to membership lists in respect of industrial relations and, in particular, of industrial action being taken and determined by members. The history is that the employers have used the existing legislation and interpreted it so that any minor discrepancy about a membership list is used in a rush to court to seek an injunction to prevent industrial action from taking place. Some examples have been given, but I have been involved in a number of activities associated with trade unions where even though there has been a 99% overwhelming decision in favour of industrial action, one or two members out of thousands have been missed off the ballot and so an injunction has been awarded. Therefore, the industrial action, along with the will of the members, has been prevented from being implemented. We tried to overcome that through legislation in this House—I tried to put such legislation through on three occasions, but it got talked out every time—but we have just overcome it in the courts. We have received a decision in the courts that enables minor infringements not to be taken into account and the decision of the overall will of the members to be acceded to.
	However, the Bill opens up a whole new vista of potential legal challenges. As colleagues have said, it relates not only to industrial action, industrial activity, ballots and so on; it could relate to the whole operation of the union. Employers could trawl over membership lists, go off to the certification officer and then we could get to court, where the challenge will be about how the union operates overall. So lawyers will be able to tie up trade unions in legal actions for years to come, preventing them from undertaking what the impact study calls their “core” trade union work of representing members.
	I ask Government Members: what is the motivation for this measure? Some of that has leaked out. They have listened to what has happened in recent months—the anger there is among working people about the cuts to their wages, the zero-hour contracts and the undermining of employment rights. People are beginning to react. They do not usually react at the depths of a recession, doing so when they are coming out of one and when their living standards of some are rising. So we are talking about a recovery for the rich but a recession for the rest. That is when people get angry and when industrial action takes place—that is when strikes happen. It is also when trade unions need to be representing their members. So I think this measure is part and parcel of the Government preparing for the potential for industrial activity over this coming period. It is another mechanism by which they will do everything they possibly can to undermine the rights of trade unions and their ability to operate effectively in representing their members. It is so short term, because all it will do is anger people even more and as these impediments
	build up, although they are relatively minor at first, people will become more angry. Then, we will have wildcat action—action that is uncontrolled—because people are so furious at how they are being treated by their employers in collusion with the Government.
	Let me make one final point, because I want to understand. If the argument is that the clause is about ensuring that membership organisations are open, transparent and accurately reflect their members’ views, and if it is about organisations that have an impact on the general life of our society, why does it not refer to the CBI, the Institute of Directors and all the other trade associations? They are membership organisations and they have as much of an effect on the daily lives of our population as trade unions, yet they remain completely unregulated. That portrays to me the in-built bias of this Government against trade unionism and working people. That is why we must vote against clause stand part.
	The amendment is moderate, and simply says that if the certification officer identifies a problem we should implement the provision—I have similar amendments on the implementation of the Bill, which we probably will not reach. That is all my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South is saying: if there is a grievance or a problem let us by all means have some action, but not unless a problem is identified. That is a relatively moderate, pragmatic way forward. If the Government do not accept the amendment, that will completely endorse the view that this is bias motivated by prejudice against trade unions and trade unionism.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is making another compelling speech. He mentions organisations such as the Church, the IOD and the CBI; is he as astonished as I am that while this draconian measure is going through to restrict trade unionism even more in this country the Conservative party will not even tell us how many members it has?

John McDonnell: I fear when Governments start seeking to regulate civil society generally. That is what the clause does: it is a step along the path of regulation of wider civil society organisations. What else? The Countryside Alliance? We might be up for that, just to see where the money comes from, but there are a range of organisations whose rights, privileges and privacy we want to be respected for reasons of basic civil liberties. Why are trade unions being singled out in this manner? The Bill is being targeted and comes at a time when the Government are predicting that they will be faced with trade unionists who are very angry about not being able to share in what is supposed to be an economic recovery. It is about the exercise of trade union rights.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) mentioned the legality of the Government’s legislation. Let me be clear that our Governments have been condemned by the International Labour Organisation and other international organisations for two decades now because of their trade union legislation. It is not just about the right to strike; it is about certain basic and fundamental trade union rights. The clause, yet again, imposes further duties that I believe to be completely contrary to ILO conventions. Yet again, this country will be isolated in the world and
	condemned for its attack on trade union rights, which are incorporated in all those international statutes and conventions as a basic human right.
	In summary, that is why I oppose clause stand part and support the moderate, pragmatic amendment. If we reach that stage in our consideration of the Bill, I will discuss the amendments I have proposed, which basically say that if the Government want the legislation—which we do not support—to go forward, they should at have some form of trigger, such as a complaint or concern that has been raised and assessed. If there has been a complaint and there needs to be further action, fair enough. That is not the case at the moment and I think that this is just biased prejudice against trade unions and trade unionism overall.

John Cryer: First, let me say what a compelling speech my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) just made. He made some strong points—this is about the evisceration of the industrial and political opposition over the next few months because the Government can see some serious problems on the horizon emanating from the policies they are pursuing. They want to neutralise any resistance to those policies and their consequences through the Bill and other measures.
	I have a series of questions on this clause that I would like the Minister to deal with. My first question has been asked before, but it is specific. What specific complaints about union record keeping have been made and by whom over the last, say, three years? Secondly, as an addendum to that, what evidence is there that unions are not keeping accurate records? As we have heard before, under the 1992 legislation there is already a duty on trade unions to keep their records up to date. What has changed since then? What enormous problems are associated with trade union record keeping that have led the Government to their current position and to change things in such a radical way?
	Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the impact on the privacy of trade union members? I have many constituents, as I am sure we all have, who are members of trade unions but whose employers do not know that. I have had many conversations with constituents over the past three years in which I have said to them that they do not need to inform their employer that they are a member of a trade union and can keep it secret if they are worried about future problems at work. Does the Minister think that the increased access to trade union records and activities will give people in that position any great confidence that their details will remain private, or should they start to worry that all sorts of people, potentially including their employers, might get access to those records and perhaps start to use them against them? The change in the nature of work means that that is an important element of how trade unions and the world of work operate. The days when we had great concentrations of employers, all of whom were often union members, are gone. These days, we often have smaller work forces and only a handful might be trade union members. That group of people might not want their details to be exposed to public view.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that many trade union members, for whatever reason, do not wish their employer to know that they are a
	member of a trade union but very much value their membership. Does he agree that those members’ concern is that their personal information might get into the hands of their employer and could be used against them in the workplace, particularly for future blacklisting?

John Cryer: That is a very good point. We have all sorts of debates in this place on blacklisting recently; it is a problem that goes back many decades and persists in many sectors today.
	My next question for the Minister is whether there has been any assessment specifically of the effect of the future legislation on the sectors of the economy that are particularly casualised. I am thinking of construction, agriculture, hospitality and catering. In construction and agriculture, particularly, the fluid nature of the work force means that it is difficult to keep accurate records of membership.
	I have worked for three trade unions in the past and trade unions, more now than at any time in their history, devote enormous resources—as many as they possibly can—to organising records and keeping them up to date. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), large general unions, particularly Unite and the GMB, can easily lose 12% of their membership, particularly at a time such as this. Their membership tends to stand still because they can recruit another 12% in the same sectors to take the place of those members who have been lost because of jobs being lost, factory closures and so on, but just to stand still they have to recruit 12%. The level of churn means that it is difficult to keep records up to date, no matter how many resources are devoted to record keeping. Of course, up-to-date records are dependent on members informing the union that they have moved house, for instance, or changed occupation. That does not always happen.

Katy Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend on how he is presenting his case. He is correct that unions put a huge amount of resources into trying to keep accurate membership records, especially because of the number of legal challenges that employers take against them in the courts. Does he agree that the changing nature of the work force, with the increase of zero-hours contracts and underemployment that means that people have more than one part-time job, makes it even more difficult for unions to keep accurate records?

John Cryer: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There is also the situation involving payroll companies. If such a company offers to take over all an employer’s payroll responsibilities, the duties to pay pensions, national insurance and sick pay are divested to that payroll company, meaning that that semi-detached element in the workplace is responsible for maintaining many records, which makes keeping everything up to date even more complicated and difficult. Another aspect is the casualisation of the workplace, because there are some sectors of the economy in which full-time permanent employment is almost being abolished. Again, that situation will make it more difficult to comply with the Bill’s strictures.

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend makes a crucial point about the difficulty of communicating with trade union members. I have been a branch secretary, so
	I know that it is difficult enough to communicate with just a branch. The key aspect of the Government’s motivation in previous legislation has been to address balloting procedures, which I understand to a certain extent, because there is a need to ensure that there is an accurate record of membership when taking a ballot. However, what is sinister about the Bill’s proposals, with reference to the Government’s assessment, is that they are about ensuring that the general public and employers are
	“confident that voting papers and other communications are reaching union members”.
	The Bill therefore covers a wider range of activities than just balloting, so there could be challenges from employers and others about just whether a trade union had adequately communicated with its members, by post or other means, about any matter.

John Cryer: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether any other section of civil society is as heavily regulated as trade unions. Unions will be subject to even more regulation because every piece of communication with members will be covered by statute, which represents an extraordinary intervention into people’s lives.
	Will the Minister tell us how the 1992 Act relates to the Bill, and especially to clause 36, because that Act makes provision for keeping accurate and up-to-date records? Will she tell us what has specifically changed since the implementation of that consolidation Act that has brought about an enormous problem that now must be dealt with?

Julie Elliott: Given the regulation on trade unions’ membership records that already exists, does my hon. Friend agree that unions probably are the most regulated membership organisations in the country and have the most accurate records? What is the need for extra regulation, other than to constrain the legitimate actions of trade unions?

John Cryer: I could not agree more—my hon. Friend puts it far better than I could.

Charlie Elphicke: I speak as someone who, like many Conservatives, believes in trade unions’ right to use their economic power collectively. However, is the hon. Gentleman saying that trade unions should be subject to less regulation than at present?

John Cryer: Yes, I am. I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman believes in the collective strength of trade unions, and I am sure that he will be known in Dover as Red Charlie after that comment.
	The trade unions are subject to enormously heavy regulation, so I do believe in less regulation. Successive Governments have carried out all sorts of investigations into the burdens of regulation on every sector of the economy, but I agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) that there should be an investigation into the regulatory burdens on trade unions. As a trade union officer in a past life, I have seen such burdens, and while I would be out of order if I talked about my experiences, they were extraordinary. I suspect that a number of Government Members would be surprised to hear how heavily regulated trade unions are.

Charlie Elphicke: While I support trade unions’ use of legitimate economic power, taking the step of using that serious power can have great economic consequences. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that power should be exercised within a framework that has been carefully set out so that the people at the top of trade unions cannot abuse it?

John Cryer: Of course I agree, but there has always been a legal framework for taking industrial action. The idea that anyone ever takes industrial action—not only strike action, but action short of strikes—lightly is a myth. That just does not happen in the real world.

Edward Leigh: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very well behaved so far and has stayed entirely in order, but he has been led astray by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). He should now return to the clause.

John Cryer: I am told that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) regularly leads people astray—[Interruption.] I do not mean that; I am joking.
	As has been said repeatedly, we were first led to believe that this measure would be a lobbying Bill, but since then parts 2 and 3 have been added. We had been promised a lobbying Bill for three and a half years, but all sorts of things have been bolted on to that. Why was there no consultation paper on not only part 2, which we dealt with yesterday, but part 3 and provisions such as clause 36? Why could not the Government have issued a consultation paper so that people could have contributed to the process, rather than ramming the Bill through in a few days, despite introducing it just before the recess? These measures should have been thought through carefully and a consultation process to which people could contribute should have been held, but that simply did not happen.

Frank Doran: I declare an interest as a member of the GMB union, which has funded me in the past, and as secretary of the trade union group of Labour MPs. I wanted to say that because, like most of my colleagues, I am tired of the way in which trade unions are demonised, especially by the Government, who are putting as many obstacles as possible in the way of trade unions carrying out their normal and reasonable functions, as is apparent from part 3 of the Bill. The points that hon. Members have made about this group of amendments, which we have been discussing for some time, are relevant to virtually every other provision, because we need to hear from the Government why part 3 is necessary, which is the point on which I shall focus my speech.
	I have had some experience of working with the certification officer. In 1993, when the unions were approaching the 10-year ballot for their political fund, I was appointed by a group of trade unions—more than 30 of them—to run the campaign, along with a colleague, Derek Gladwin, who became Lord Gladwin. Sadly, he is now dead. We ran that operation, balloting more than 6 million trade unionists. I did it in close co-operation with the certification officer and I learned a little about the way in which certification officers operate.
	If we look back at the history of the regulation of trade unions, it is fairly clear that trade unions are used to regulation and the requirements of regulation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) pointed out forcefully the very small number of complaints from members about the processes and about the way in which the unions operated— 10 complaints, I think, since the 1980s. Given the numbers involved, that is remarkable.
	It is difficult to answer the question why the Bill is necessary. The first legislation was in 1871. That legalised trade unionism, and it gave unions the option to register as trade unions. The vast majority of the major unions eventually did so. It is interesting that the term “trade union” in those days included employers associations. Somewhere or other that has been lost in all the processes and all the amendments made to the legislation over the years, culminating in the consolidation of trade union and employment law in the 1992 Act, which was referred to earlier.
	It is interesting to look at certification officers and how they have seen their role. As I mentioned in an intervention, I organised a conference some years ago at which the certification officer of the time spoke about his functions. As he saw it, his function was to deal with complaints made by members that a trade union had failed to maintain an accurate register of members, and to see that trade unions kept proper accounting records, had their accounts properly audited, and submitted annual returns for the investigation of the financial affairs of trade unions and for ensuring that the statutory requirements concerning the actuarial examination of members’ superannuation schemes were observed. I have not had the time to check the detailed provisions of the 1992 Act, but it seems to me that it encapsulates everything that the Government want to do, and that that is within the existing powers of the certification officer and the system.
	We have a major problem in this country, and it is a problem for all the political parties. I believe it is a serious problem and that the country pays a high price for it. For some of our near neighbours, the Germans and the Nordic countries, there are certain areas where all the parties agree, and they are all social and community areas, including rights at work and the operation of trade unions. We have a system where one Government come in and want to rip up everything that has gone before—not just in respect of trade unions, but in many other areas—then another Government come in and do the same in their turn.
	I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Employment Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry in 1997 when we came into power. Trade union issues were seriously discussed in the DTI and round the Cabinet table at that time, because we did not want just to take a lurch back. Matters were discussed seriously with the trade unions in advance and they knew what was coming.
	It was decided, first, that in any area where a trade union member had the right to ballot, that right would not be removed. That was sacrosanct—a red line. Secondly, it was decided that we needed to review trade union laws and to do so comprehensively. There was no point in putting only our side of the case and banging ahead with the sort of stuff that we are seeing now—Beecroft, as has been mentioned, the constant erosion of workers’ rights and constant efforts to undermine trade unions.
	We decided to call in the TUC and the CBI and to ask the director general of the CBI and the general secretary of the TUC, Adair Turner and John Monks, to go away and look at all the issues that needed to be considered. They were asked to come back and tell us what they agreed on, what they disagreed on but could negotiate, and what they positively disagreed on. I remember sitting in the Secretary of State’s office when Adair Turner and John Monks made their report after months of consideration. We were all staggered by what they had done, because the CBI and the TUC had agreed on much more than we ever imagined. We set a programme based on the facts, the evidence and the thorough inquiry by the people who are the experts in this game—not the politicians, but business and the representatives of the work force.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is setting out what I think is the correct approach to dealing with trade union matters. He mentioned earlier the role of the certification officer. From his wide experience of trade unions, is he aware of any problems with the current role he has set out? If not, does he share my conclusion that this is merely a politically motivated attack on trade unions going about their legitimate day-to-day business?

Frank Doran: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am trying to be polite to the Government. I must say that I have not had any contact with the certification officer for some time, but I know from the years when I did have contact that there were problems—it would be unfair to say that there were not. When I was in the job, a number of trade unions were very unhappy with the changes that had been made in 1984 and were not complying. I know from my contact with the trade unions that that is all resolved, and the record speaks for itself. The certification officer does a job that is required of him. Some people might think that he requires too much of the trade unions, but the fact of the matter is that they have accepted the regulation and work within the rules as they are.

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman is giving a fascinating description of the certification officer’s role in providing membership audit certificates. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested in recent days that perhaps there should be an opt-in for the political fund. Does the hon. Gentleman support that, and does he think that that could have been included in the clause?

Frank Doran: I always support my leader.

Edward Leigh: Order. Members cannot just make something up and say that it should be in the clause; they must relate the debate to what is in the clause already. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who has been here quite long enough, should learn how to behave properly.

Frank Doran: I hope that I took it in good part, Sir Edward.
	The decision on the legislation that was to proceed was taken under the process I have mentioned, and everything agreed between the CBI and the TUC was implemented. At its heart was the need to take the heat out of industrial action. We looked at a whole range of
	areas. One key area was the problem of recognition disputes, when unions had built up a membership in a company and wanted recognition. Many such disputes ended up in the courts and in difficult strikes. We wanted to take the heat out of all areas of conflict. All of that was implemented in the Employment Relations Act 1999. The evidence was a dramatic reduction in the number of strikes—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South mentioned the number, but I cannot remember—and that has been maintained. I do not think that there is any question about that.
	During the Conservative years, and the previous Labour years, to be honest, the level of strikes was far too high. That legislation and that process brought that to an end, and at the time both sides were happy. Even before that legislation was implemented to set in place a process for dealing with recognition disputes, and the effort was to take them out of the courts and minimise conflict, over 1,000 new recognition agreements were signed by both sides.
	One of the major problems with this Government is that they have a one-sided approach that demonises trade unions and in every way possible places barriers in the way of the trade union movement. There is no realisation of what happens on the ground. Most trade unions are there not to carry out strikes or disrupt the employer, but to protect their members. As part of the process I mentioned, we did a lot of balloting and held focus groups to find out why members signed up to unions. The important thing for most of them was the insurance policy that they got—the fact that the union would support them if there was an argument with their employer, and in particular would pay for the lawyers in an unfair dismissal case, for example. That is what members bought into.
	One of my concerns about the Government’s approach is that the harder it becomes for trade unions to operate properly, as trade unions should be allowed to operate in a democratic system, the more members will become tired of the system and have no proper recourse for their grievances. I do not often agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on these issues—

John McDonnell: Yes, you do.

Frank Doran: I try not to.

John McDonnell: Increasingly you do.

Frank Doran: My point is that if people see a weakened trade union movement, they will take matters into their own hands. That is a dangerous situation.
	Many companies around this country work well with their trade unions and recognise them properly. Most are large; a significant number of FTSE companies, for example, have good relations with trade unions. I remember a number of occasions when unions have been used to lobby Members of Parliament. Once my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and I made a difficult trip to Sellafield; we were expected to stand on top of a reactor, although we were both too cowardly to do that. We were also gently asked to meet the trade union officials. At that time we were developing an anti-nuclear policy.

Edward Leigh: Order. The hon. Gentleman should leave the subject of Sellafield and come back to clause 36, please. The discussion is getting very wide.

Frank Doran: Two hundred trade unionists turned up to lobby us at the meeting we attended. The point I was trying to make, Mr Leigh, was about the relationship between a good union and a good employer.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) raised union problems. There are two ways of looking at the matter. Either the Government do not know what the problems are, in which case they are negligent, or they know the problems and want them to be exploited. There are major difficulties in the path of any trade union that wants to keep proper records.
	The first difficulty is the churn rate. My hon. Friend said that it was 10% or 15%, but the churn rate for the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, or USDAW, for example, is 25% or sometimes 30%. Every year it has to replace 25% of its membership. A lot of members go on to other jobs. They pay their union dues by direct debit and think they do not need to bother to tell the union that they have changed workplace, because they are still working in the same business and paying their union dues. That is difficult for unions. There are lots of practical issues such as that.
	The biggest employer in my area is the North sea oil and gas industry, which employs about 30,000 workers offshore and 150,000 onshore. All have different status in the workplace. Many union members are self-employed and many work from company to company. At the moment, there is a massive skill shortage in the North sea. Wages are being ramped up—not a problem in the rest of the country, I know—because people are being enticed to other companies, but still working in the same business, travelling on the same unsafe helicopters and paying their union dues as usual through their bank accounts. Those are all massive problems.

Katy Clark: My hon. Friend’s speech is most interesting. It is incredibly important to put these issues into context. Over recent years, unions have spent millions of pounds trying to ensure that they have the best possible membership records. They have also had to pay many millions of pounds to lawyers in defending those membership records in courts of law. Is that really what we want?

Frank Doran: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the discussions we had in 1997, the aim was to take industrial relations out of the law courts, yet this Bill is going to put them back in again.
	In addition to all the logistical problems, many employers, not just those in the North sea industry—I think this also applies to virtually every shipping company based in Britain—now offshore their workers so that employers national insurance contributions do not have to be paid. The Chancellor has decided that that situation should change, but I am not sure whether he has yet introduced the necessary regulations or legislation. When the employers are not paying national insurance and the workers are moving from system to system, it is very difficult for the trade union to make contact, and that is a major problem.
	There are four major unions for workers on the North sea: the GMB, Unite, BALPA—the British Air Line Pilots Association—and the RMT. Those workers come from all parts of the country. Every one of them is registered with their trade union at their home address, but their workplace is the North sea. It is very difficult for the unions when they have major problems trying to contact their members on the North sea—even when they know they are there, which is not always the case. I saw many problems along those lines when I was involved in trade union ballots, because one of my jobs was to make sure that the unions had up-to-date and adequate records.
	This issue has been under discussion in trade union and Government circles for a number of years. It is a great disappointment to me that the Labour Government did not recognise the problem, because it was easy to resolve. If the Minister is seriously worried about it, he could easily implement an obligation on employers to give information to trade unions about their current work force which would be virtually cost-free. It would not place a huge responsibility on employers to ask them to provide that information so that everybody can be sure that there is accuracy, particularly as regards any industrial ballots that may take place. There would be much more good will if the Government went down that route instead of imposing extra bureaucracy on the unions in the way they propose.
	The issue of human rights gives rise to valid concerns. One of the trade union legal firms has given legal advice pointing out how intrusive the proposed powers are in relation to the possession of sensitive personal information, including the home addresses and personal contact details, and probably bank details, of unlimited numbers of union members. It says:
	“The Bill gives the Certification Officer, his staff, inspectors and newly-created ‘Assurers’ sweeping powers to take and copy individual membership records and correspondence on the basis of having an undefined ‘good reason’. As the TUC has pointed out, it is not the business of the State to know who is or who is not a trade union member and where they live.”
	There are serious worries about that. Others have mentioned the problems of blacklisting and so on, which should be taken much more seriously.
	Finally, the much delayed impact assessment makes clear that the policy objective is to give greater assurance that unions comply with the existing duty to maintain a register of members’ names and addresses. I repeat the point that others have made: there is no evidence—or at least none that is clear to those of us who are regularly involved with trade unions—that this Bill is necessary. It is clear to the Opposition that it is politically motivated. The Liberal party has a very good record on trade unions and it is very difficult to understand why it is involved in this process.

Ian Lavery: There have been some fantastic contributions to this very important debate on part 3 of the Bill. The most important thing about the Bill has been addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) in his conclusion and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who both said that it could be in contravention of the European convention on human rights. That is a huge issue.
	The Bill was published eight working days ago, which has given no opportunity for any clear consultation. Indeed, there has been a complete lack of consultation.
	Usually, those who are affected by a Bill are at least asked to participate in some form of consultation, but that simply has not been the case. The TUC, which is hardly a beacon of militancy, should at least have been given the opportunity to express the views of its 7.2 million members. Others should have been given a similar opportunity.
	That lack of consultation and the fact that the Bill is undoubtedly an invasion of privacy and freedom of association mean that there is a huge question mark over whether it is legal. I am convinced that there will be a legal challenge.

Katy Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has said so far. Is he aware that Unison commissioned Michael Ford QC of Old Square chambers to provide it with legal advice? It has been shared with the Government and says that
	“the Bill probably infringes both Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) with regards to the right to a private life and Article 11…with regards to the freedom of association.”
	Will my hon. Friend join me in calling on the Minister to address those issues fully in her response?

Ian Lavery: I am fully aware of all the legal advice—it has been received not just by Unison but by other organisations—which clearly highlights the concerns about the Bill. The legal issue is very important and can be argued to and fro, as is always the case. However, if the legal profession have as many doubts about the Bill as it appears to have, surely it should have been put on the back burner in order to allow for consultation, legal advice and discussions with Members of all parties. Surely that is how we should operate in a democratic society. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) mentioned, the Bill is not about tidying anything up, but about hammering trade unions. It is about trade union baiting, which the press, the media and the Conservative Government are happy to do on an almost daily basis. That is atrocious, but we see it day after day.

Mark Tami: Is it a surprise that this debate happens to coincide with the week of the TUC conference?

Ian Lavery: Unfortunately, I have been unable to attend the TUC conference for a number of reasons. Of course it is not a coincidence. It is part of the strategy of the coalition Government to attack trade unionists while they are at the trade union conference. Only a few Government Members have been here for this debate. There are only two present at the moment. That shows how much interest they have in the Bill. It is outrageous. This Bill is part of the Government’s clear-cut strategy to attack trade unions in any way that they can.
	The real question is, what is the Bill about? I am really looking forward to the Minister’s response. She is a staunch Liberal Democrat. Some might say that she has sold her principles and her party down the river on many issues. Perhaps others would disagree. I am not sure, but my view is irrelevant.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. He is right to point out that clause 36 is neither liberal nor democratic if one is a trade unionist.
	There has been no explanation or critique of the problem that the Government are seeking to solve. Is that not what we need to hear from the Minister?

Ian Lavery: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We have been in this debate for a number of hours and, despite many interventions from both sides of the Chamber, we have had no suggestion of what part 3 seeks to resolve. That can only mean that it does not seek to resolve anything. It is just bolted on to parts 1 and 2. It does not seek to do anything other than put a huge burden on the local trade unionists who are expected to compile the registers of the work force, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North said.
	Those same lay members who do their work on a daily basis have been hammered by the coalition Government in terms of their facility time. That is not a coincidence because up to 90% of public sector workers, particularly those in local authorities, have been hammered in that way. And yet those are the individuals who give up their time to ensure that their trade unions adhere to the legislation, including the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The attack on the trade unions by taking away facility time will make it extremely difficult for those people.

Lisa Nandy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time. I agree with everything that he has said. Does he agree that it would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether she has met the TUC to discuss the concerns that he raises? I know that the TUC is keen to talk to the Government about those matters.

Ian Lavery: It would be helpful if the Minister explained who has been consulted in this process—a lot of people would be interested to hear that. My view is that it would not take long to explain how many people have been consulted, because it is only one or two. The trade unions individually and the TUC collectively have not been consulted.
	Getting back to the Bill—

Edward Leigh: Order. The hon. Gentleman should already be on the Bill.

Ian Lavery: I accept that I have again been led astray, Sir Edward. Perhaps I should have said that I am getting back to the meat of the Bill.
	In the past two years—it has been blatantly obvious in the past week or so—we have seen that the Liberal Democrats are dead. They have been absolutely blown out of the water. Congratulations to them—they have suicide notes and everything. Last night, they voted against the big society, charities that strive to do their best, and campaign groups like the National Union of Students, which will campaign against the Liberal Democrats in a big way. I hope that, because of how they voted last night, the campaign against them will become increasingly strong. Let us hope they get their just desserts.
	Part 3 deals with trade union administration. As Opposition Members have said, British trade union legislation is the most restrictive in western Europe—it
	is anti-trade union legislation. The question is this: what does part 3 seek to resolve? We have received copies of the impact assessment study, but it was not available earlier and, unfortunately, hon. Members have not had the opportunity to read it. A consultation document on the measure is absent from the discussion.
	Clause 36 creates a new duty on trade unions to send a membership audit certificate to the certification officer when they see each annual return. If the union has more than 10,000 members, the membership audit certificate must be provided by an independent assurer. Given the current legislation, why is that measure being introduced? The existing system is working. Under the 1992 Act, a trade union has a duty to maintain a register of the names and addresses of its members and a duty
	“so far as is reasonably practicable”
	to ensure that
	“entries in the register are accurate and…kept up-to-date.”
	The 1992 Act provides that a trade union should “allow any member”, on request, with
	“reasonable notice, to ascertain from the register, free of charge…whether there is an entry on it relating to him”
	or her. A failure to comply with the requirements of section 24 can be subject to an application either to the CO or the court.
	The certification office annual report 2012-13 states that 166 trade unions submitted returns but not membership lists, recording a total of nearly 7.2 million members, compared with 7,261,000 members the previous year—the largest reduction in membership was in the construction sector. The annual return is to include a copy of the auditor’s report on the accounts, which allows the CO to compare revenue from dues with the numbers reported.
	In 2012-13, the returns showed that income from members increased by 1.3% to £873 million. The returns also showed that 90.5% of the total number of members were contributing members, compared to a figure of 89.4% in the previous year.
	There is nothing to fix here. Even we accept the Bill, nothing will be fixed. The saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Trade unions are duty bound to maintain a register of members’ names and addresses—this is important—so far as is reasonably practicable, as per the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. I would have thought that anyone wishing to contribute to the debate has read section 24 of the 1992 Act.

Katy Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech. He will be aware that a former leader of the Labour party called Britain’s trade union legislation the most restrictive in Europe. Is he surprised that Government Members are not jumping up to complain about red tape?

Ian Lavery: It is amazing. The Government are looking to cut red tape on industrial relations, health and safety and trade union law, but at the same time the only organisation for which they are looking to increase bureaucracy is the trade union movement. That is a fair point, which highlights what is really behind the Bill: another vicious attack on the trade union movement. In
	the main, it will be the ordinary person at grass-roots level who will have to make sure that the proposed legislation is applied.
	Anyone wishing to take part in the debate should at least have read section 24 of the 1992 Act, as that is what the Bill is about. What on earth are we after? Section 24 states:
	“Duty to maintain register of members’ names and addresses
	(1) A trade union shall compile and maintain a register of the names and addresses of its members, and shall secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the entries in the register are accurate and are kept up-to-date.
	(2) The register may be kept by means of a computer.”

Julie Elliott: Is it not true that the certification officer oversees compliance with the 1992 Act to ensure that membership records are kept correctly? Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that there is no need for further regulation or changes to the law to add to this bureaucratic burden?

Ian Lavery: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is the point I hope I have established and I will continue to make it.
	Section 24(3) states:
	“A trade union shall—
	“(a) allow any member, upon reasonable notice, to ascertain from the register, free of charge and at any reasonable time, whether there is an entry on it relating to him; and .
	(b) if requested to do so by any member, supply him as soon as reasonably practicable, either free of charge or on payment of a reasonable fee, with a copy of any entry on the register relating to him.”

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to Back Benchers. His point is crucial to the decisions we will take today. Is he aware of any suggestion made to the Government by trade unions that they are not able to meet the requirements set out in the 1992 Act and therefore require new legislation?

Ian Lavery: Although the trade unions were not very receptive to the legislation initially, they accepted the change in the law. They accepted that the TULR regulations had to be adhered to, and they have done so—reluctantly, although now it is not too much of a problem. In fact, in many ways it helps trade unions to keep people pressed to ensure that they have up-to-date names and addresses for all members. The trade unions were not receptive at the time; they are happy now. Indeed, I have not spoken to any union or union representative, or even any union member or non-union member—not one person—who has told me that we need more legislation on union names and addresses in the register. Although the unions were not happy about the 1992 Act initially, it has been acted upon and delivered. There are not many complaints, as we have heard, to the certification officer because of problems with the names and addresses in the register or the legislation, so everything seems to be in order. Everything seems to be going ahead, yet the Government have put these proposals before us.

David Anderson: Is my hon. Friend award that the TUC briefing says that it has made freedom of information requests to the Department for Business, Innovation
	and Skills, ACAS and the certification officer asking whether anyone has been raising this issue, and that no one has?

Ian Lavery: That is an important point. I have been in front of the certification officer on numerous occasions in my previous employment, on lots of different issues—some not very pleasant, by the way—but there are very few people complaining to the certification officer about this issue. We heard the facts and the figures from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South(Ian Murray), which show that there is no one complaining. The only person complaining is the certification officer, who is saying, “What on earth do you want me to do here? I’m only doing what I’m expected to do. What’s happening?”

Lady Hermon: On the onerous duty placed on the certification officer by clause 36 as currently drafted, proposed new section 24ZA(7) of the 1992 Act says:
	“The Certification Officer must at all reasonable hours”—
	not “times”, but “hours”—
	“keep available for public inspection…copies of all membership audit certificates sent to the Officer under this section.”
	Can the hon. Gentleman throw any light on the definition of “all reasonable hours”, rather than reasonable times?

Ian Lavery: I personally cannot do that—if I had drafted these wretched regulations, I might be in a position to do so—but the hon. Lady highlights an important point. Perhaps that is something the Opposition could suggest: that there is a difference between this legislation and the certification officer legislation in the TULR regulations.
	Section 25 of the 1992 Act addresses a number of problems—Members have referred to this—by setting out how failures can be remedied and how people can apply to the certification officer if they believe there is a failure under the legislation. Section 25(1) says:
	“A member of a trade union who claims that the union has failed to comply with any of the requirements of section 24…may apply to the Certification Officer for a declaration to that effect.”
	Section 25(2) says:
	“On an application being made to him, the Certification Officer shall…make such enquiries as he thinks fit”.
	That is reasonable. It means that if someone has a problem under section 24 of the 1992 Act, which deals with the names and addresses of individuals, and if the certification officer believes there is a problem, he may, under section 25(2)(a), make inquiries as he thinks fit, give the applicant and the trade union an opportunity to be heard, under section 25(2)(b), and then
	“make or refuse the declaration asked for.”
	That means that, under section 25, if any individual member of a trade union has a problem, the certification officer will, on receiving an application, investigate it. He will investigate it together with the applicant, and the trade union will be there to give its side of the story. We must remember that the existing legislation includes the words “reasonably practicable”. There could be a lot of reasons for a name or address being slightly different. There is a whole raft of legislation already in place relating to the matters covered in this Bill.

John Cryer: My hon. Friend will know that over the years, under Governments of both political complexions, there have been all sorts of reports on what are generally referred to as the burdens on business. In line with the suggestion from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), does not my hon. Friend think it would be a good idea to have an assessment of the burdens on trade unions? I would not recommend someone like Adrian Beecroft to conduct such a review, but it would be a good idea to have some sort of report on those burdens, just so that we can set out the argument in objective terms, in contrast to this very subjective piece of legislation that is being rammed through Parliament.

Ian Lavery: Of course that should be the case, but I am not sure that the Opposition should ask the coalition Government even to try to be sympathetic to the trade union movement. I would be afraid of their response. I know that it would not be positive. Perhaps instead of taking away 90% of trade unionists’ facility time, they would take 95%. That is an example of the ways in which the trade unions have been attacked by the coalition Government.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for why this dreadful legislation should not make it to the statute book. Given his vast experience of trade unions, can he think of any scenario in which it would be in a union’s interest not to keep an updated membership list?

Ian Lavery: Speaking from vast experience, it is always in a trade union’s interest to maintain the best possible record of its members, for a whole raft of reasons. A good trade union does not stand on its hind legs every week screaming, “Strike, strike, strike!” A good trade union needs the correct names and addresses of its members, so that it can address all the problems that society currently faces. This is not just about strike action, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). That is always a last resort. But I will tell you something, Mr Sheridan. I was on strike for a full year during the miners’ strike, and what a brilliant year it was! I was fighting not for myself but for the wider society, for jobs and for communities up and down the country. It gives people a lot of pleasure if they are taking action and suffering greatly for those reasons. My father and my four brothers were all on strike—my mother had a hell of a job—but we enjoyed it because we were fighting for others. That is what the trade union movement is about, and that is why I get terribly upset by the constant union-baiting from the Liberal Democrats and of course the Tories.
	It is in everyone’s interest to keep accurate records. Under the measures that were introduced in 1992, trade unions have to have that information for balloting reasons, among others. They normally have to send a full membership list with the annual return form, the AR21, to the certification officer anyway. The problem was that whenever we tried to take any type of democratic industrial action, the employer would say to me as the local representative, “You’d better have the right names and addresses. If you haven’t, we’ll get an injunction. Then, under the law, the union will be liable for any loss to the company resulting from strike action.” At the same time, the employer obviously had a list of everybody’s
	names and addresses. A responsible employer has everyone’s name and address in order to pay them—some trade unionists might prefer to keep their identity private—so surely it should be incumbent on the employer to allow any change in name and address to be passed on to the relevant trade union so that the union can act in accordance with the law. Is that too much to ask? It is feasible, but it is a trap.
	I was a representative at different levels of the union, and we would sometimes appear in front of the certification officer and often the High Court. If industrial action occurs, it might be said that somebody’s name has been spelt incorrectly or that somebody has died without people being aware of it in order to try to get that whole democratic process abolished. That is the problem with this legislation.
	Many colleagues on both sides of the Committee might agree that bureaucracy is not always a dirty word. Since the Prime Minister got the keys to Downing Street, the Government have promised to cut red tape. What have we seen? We have seen the Government making it easier for people to be hired and fired for no particular reason. They have gone to work with some zeal in attacking workers’ rights at every opportunity, and they have relaxed health and safety legislation. The unions have rightly opposed all those things, which they won in the first place.
	I have said before that it is funny that the only area where the Government have sought to increase bureaucracy is in the administration of trade unions. This will not be for the last time either. Unfortunately, this coalition, with Liberal Democrat support, will continue to oppose and attack not just trade union members, but many of the most vulnerable people in society. That is what they are about. As I have said, I believe that at the ballot box they will reap what they have sown. That, by the way, is democracy.
	This Bill is undoubtedly about ideology. It is a thinly veiled attack on a movement that the parties on the Government Benches despise. We could move on to deal with the duty to appoint an assurer, but at this point I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South and of course the shadow BIS Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), who has highlighted another issue relating to another problem with these lists. They will allow organisations to increase blacklisting, which is already the scourge of the working class. Because of information being passed willy-nilly from employer to different secret organisations, some people are on blacklists. At the end of the day, these people and their families can suffer greatly for the rest of their lives.
	That is a problem with the data. The new rules will mean that three new groups will have access to individual membership details—three new opportunities for data to escape into the public domain. Several organisations have raised a concern—I have already mentioned it—about the legality of that. The trade union movement and its individual organisations have a duty under the Data Protection Act to ensure that the information they hold on individual members is kept secure, but this new legislation when passed—not “if”, because it will be passed—will prevent that from happening. There will be a legal contradiction about who is right and it will be up for legal challenge.
	I think that in any other country, action such as this on the part of a democratically elected Government would be condemned as an attack on free trade unionism, and I think that that is exactly what is happening in this case. It is about time that the coalition Government sat back and paused, as they have in the past. It is time that they consulted others, got the legal position right, and then returned with reforms that actually meant something and changed something. I look forward very much indeed to the Minister’s response, which should take all of one minute.

David Anderson: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sheridan.
	I intend to focus on clause 36 stand part. Let me begin by putting it on the record—in case anyone thinks that I am trying to hide it—that I am very much part of the trade union movement. I am a former national president of Unison, and a honorary life member of that union; I am a member of the Communication Workers Union, and a former proud member of the National Union of Mineworkers; and I was a member of the General Council of the TUC for six years. So I think that I may just have a little bit of an idea of what we are talking about, whereas other Members who are in the Chamber may not.
	I was actively involved in the trade union movement for 40 years, and during that time I challenged very drastically some of the legislation that has been referred to today, including the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which the trade unions described at the time as a scabs’ charter. That was exactly what it was there for. It was there to help people to take on and undermine their own trade unions. It was a deliberate attempt by the Conservative party to undermine trade union legislation and trade union activity, and exactly the same thing is happening today. This Bill is part and parcel of that legislation. [Interruption.] It looks as though the Minister wants to intervene.

Tom Brake: I was just speculating on when the hon. Gentleman would actually refer to clause 36, given the absence of any reference to it so far. However, I am sure that the Chairman will intervene when he thinks that the hon. Gentleman is not addressing the issue.

Jim Sheridan: The Chair will decide what is in order.

David Anderson: That is par for the course in this debate, Mr Sheridan. The Government are trying to stifle debate, and they are doing that by pushing the Bill through Parliament in record time. They do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to hear the facts. There is a thread running through this debate. It is not about the clauses; it is not about the words on the paper; it is about a political fix. The Minister’s party is colluding with the Tory party in an attempt—a direct attempt, as we heard yesterday—to fix the people in this country so that their voices are dumbed down.
	The 1992 Act created the office of commissioner for the rights of trade union members, or CROTUM. There was also a Scottish commissioner for the rights of trade union members, or SCROTUM. That is what the debate, and the Bill, are about. It is fitting in this context.
	That office was set up deliberately to encourage disgruntled trade union members to get out of their unions and undermine them.
	The Minister said that I should return to the subject of the clause, and I shall do so now. Let me ask this: why are we here? This debate ought to be driven by the huge public concern that exists in this country about cash for questions, cronyism, dinners at No. 10 and the buying of favours. We ought to be discussing what was revealed yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann): the fact that private individuals pumped £250,000 into his constituency to try to prevent him from becoming Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw. We should be discussing those issues, rather than the minutiae of legislation that is already more than adequate.
	As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), 40 million people have been registered on union lists in the last seven years, and there has not been one complaint. The people of this country are not concerned about what certification officers are getting up to; they are concerned about cronyism. They are concerned about the influence that Murdoch has, and the influence that private people have. They are concerned about people such as Asil Nadir and Michael Brown, who are languishing in jail while the Government parties keep money that they stole.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is making a superb speech. If his constituency mailbag is anything like mine, he will have received hundreds of e-mails and letters about yesterday’s business. How many people in his constituency have raised concerns about the certification officer?

David Anderson: Absolutely none; not one.
	We heard earlier from our learned friend the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee about the work it was doing to try to build a consensus across the House in addressing the points the people of this country are really worried about. That has been thrown out of the window, however, so that yesterday we discussed attacks on charities and organisations like the Royal British Legion and today we are talking about attacks on the trade union movement.

Stephen McPartland: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to tell us how many unions have approached him with concerns about the certification officer and this part of the Bill?

David Anderson: No trade union has approached me about the certification officer, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, the unions campaigned against legislation in the 1990s, but they have now accepted the reality of that legislation. They have put money aside time and again. Staff time is used up and people are employed to make sure the records are kept up to date. There is no reason to do what this part of the Bill is saying should be done, and what this part of the Bill is supposed to be about does not in any sense have anything to do with lobbying or people misusing lobbyists.
	As we saw yet again today, the Prime Minister cannot stop himself: he has to attack the trade union movement, because that is part of the narrative—the big, bad trade
	union bosses who are controlling the Labour party, telling the leader what to do and telling us all what to do, and bankrolling us. That is absolute guff. The people being bankrolled are the Members sitting on the Government Benches, who are bankrolled by people who have no democratic right whatsoever and where there is no transparency about what they are doing. The truth is the agenda is very clear: big business is getting away with murder.
	We have heard over the past few days that 1% of lobbyists could be caught by this Bill. What about the other 99% who are getting away with things? That is what the people of this country are worried about.
	This is a continuation of a raft of constitutional work that has been done over the past three years: the alternative vote referendum Bill, Lords reform, the packing out of the Lords, the boundary review, the attempts to impose city mayors. They have been introduced for one reason alone: to tip the balance of power in favour of the coalition parties at the 2015 general election. It is a deliberate ploy, and people can see through it and see it for what it is. The Government want to put this Bill in place quickly so that from 8 May next year there will be a year when trade unions and civic society are banned from speaking, because the Government want to try to make people forget the mess they have got this country into and the things they have done such as introducing tuition fees and the bedroom tax, and not responding positively to the Robin Hood tax campaign. They want a vacuum in that year so no one can challenge them. The people of this country will not have that, and I am convinced that if this Bill becomes law there will be a lot of people who are prepared to stand up and break that law.

Lady Hermon: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the inconsistency in the Government’s approach? A Bill relating to Northern Ireland is going through that will continue the anonymity of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland, but this Bill, which is about the transparency of all sorts of things, is putting huge burdens on charities and trade unions. In Northern Ireland, however, we do not know how much, if anything, any of the parties represented in this House are contributing across Northern Ireland.

David Anderson: As the hon. Lady will know, I serve on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and I have been involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill. The way it has passed through this House is a model of how to handle legislation. We went to Northern Ireland, we met people over there, we brought people to this House, and we talked about the implications of the measures. We talked literally about life and death matters, because people are frightened. They say, “If I’m exposed as supporting this political party, my life could be at risk.” That is a model of how to deal with a Bill, but it is the exact opposite of what has happened with this Bill—what has happened here is an absolute disgrace.
	Inconsistency is a problem. I have mentioned a number of times that no one seems to think it is an issue. Three organisations that ought to know whether or not the current arrangements are working are the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the certification officer and ACAS, and they all say they have had no complaints.
	We have heard this is part and parcel of a modernisation process. What about the Government’s system of one-in, two-out regulation? Regulations will be involved in implementing this measure, as will costs to the taxpayer, when we employ assessors and investigators. What does that do? I hope that the Minister will tell us how many regulations she thinks might be needed to put this in place and which regulations she will take out to cover for it.
	It is clear from our discussions that there are two reasons why this measure is going to be pushed through. First, it will make it very much harder for unions to have democratically effective industrial action—that is clear. Secondly, as has been reported by Liberal Democrat Lord Tyler—this was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)—it is about having an impact on the ability of trade unions to fund the political party they choose to fund. It is dead clear that that is what it is about. People are not stupid. Government Members expect the public of this country to be treated like fools, but people are not fools and they can see through this; the Bill is about “transparency”—there is a lot of transparency going on at this time. People know exactly what is happening.
	Why should this “transparency” apply only to people who support the Labour party? Why are we not talking about whether it is right and proper that we can see what makes up the Labour party’s political fund? When are we going to see the same from the other parties? When are they going to cough up? When are they going to show us where their money comes from? We can see why they would not want to do that.
	This measure is just like yesterday’s in that it is about Government Members trying to shrink away from accountability—the accountability that applies to those such as the TUC, the trade union movement, the Royal British Legion, the Robin Hood tax campaign and the National Union of Students. This is the accountability that people demand of us and that they will want to demand of us coming up to an election, and it is right that they should do so. It is the mark of a civilised society that we stand up and are accountable. Sometimes when we stand up we are found wanting and people get rid of us. Sometimes when we stand up we are not found wanting but they still get rid of us. That is called democracy and we should not be frightened of it. Clearly, Government Members are frightened to stand up and be made accountable.

Andrew Gwynne: Do the current regulations governing the trade union movement, which were so eloquently set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), not mean that few organisations are as transparent and open as the trade unions in the United Kingdom?

David Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, as there is absolutely no doubt about what he says. I do not think that any Government Member has said that it is not the case. The one Government Member who made a serious contribution was the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who spoke about whether this measure should be more restrictive. Although I would not agree with his view, he was making the point that we have something in place. He
	was asking whether we could make it tougher, but even he accepted the fact that the certification officer was saying, “There isn’t a problem.” The numbers that have been cited clearly show that there is no problem.
	The TUC was right to say that this measure is part and parcel of a package that is attacking free speech: it is limiting criticism of the Government or Government policies; it is threatening the legality of the TUC to do its business through its congress; it is preventing the TUC from having a national demonstration in the lead-up to any elections; and it is preventing campaigning. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, it also raises particular issues in places such as Northern Ireland and has implications there. So, if nothing else, we should be saying, “This is not on.”
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne asked the Leader of the House, when he was still here, why he will not do the same as he did when he was Secretary of State for Health—pause and reflect.

Ian Murray: Or resign.

David Anderson: He could resign—that is a good idea.
	I am clear that the reason why the Government will not pause and reflect is because they want to ram this measure through. There is a timetable involved. The Conservative party has decided that 7 May 2015 will be the date of the next general election, so 8 May 2014 is the day when campaigning stops, when criticism stops, when the charities have to shut up and when the trade unions have to watch what they are doing. We will get through the process of the Bill going to the Lords and coming back here just before Christmas. It will then be banged on the head and the Queen will put the stamp on it before 8 May 2014, so that Government Members can try to hide from their liability for the state they have got this country into. It is not on. This measure is not needed and it should be withdrawn. I will be supporting the very moderate amendments that have been tabled by Labour’s Front-Bench team, but it must be said that we are being led by the coalition, which is doing this for no other reason than self-interest, just as was the case on other constitutional matters. They are trying it on in this way and if the measure gets through it will be a disgrace for democracy in this country.

Jo Swinson: We have had a wide-ranging debate this afternoon on this string of amendments. At some points it might have resembled more of a part 3 stand part debate, but we have certainly discussed clause 36 stand part and the amendments, and I hope to address the points that have been made.
	It is important that union activity and decisions reflect the will of members. Knowing who their members are and being able to engage them is fundamental to unions’ democratic accountability.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the Minister give way?

Jo Swinson: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we are almost four hours into the debate and I want to make a little progress. I will then be happy to take some interventions, particularly from Members who have not been able to be in the Chamber for the whole debate.
	Unions are already required to keep an accurate and up-to-date list of their members. Indeed, many hon. Members from all parties have talked about how that is an important requirement and how it is in the interests of members. Many unions serve a large and diverse membership across different employers, job types and regions, and of course we all know that unions can take action that may have widespread consequences beyond the immediate members of the organisations. That is why it is reasonable that the Government should examine the formal requirements for the unions’ responsibility to keep their membership records accurate and up to date and that unions should be able visibly to demonstrate that they know who their members are and that they can communicate with them.
	Of course, accurate membership records are essential to ensuring proper democratic representation and, of course, they are important for administrative efficiency, particularly when a postal vote is necessary. Good membership records make that process much easier. Of course, members need to be confident that the activity their union undertakes is representative of the view and wishes of its members generally. For example, if there has been a low turnout in a postal ballot on general executive positions, members should be confident that that is because some people are choosing not to vote and not because they have in some way been disfranchised. As union activity can also affect everybody’s daily lives, it is important that the general public can have confidence that the unions’ actions are also based on a representative view of their members.
	This is a relatively modest measure to give such confidence and assurance. I agree that membership lists are important, a point that has been made by many Members. As unions are already undertaking activity to try to ensure that the lists are up to date, it should not be a particularly onerous obligation to demonstrate that they have procedures in place to keep those lists up to date.

Kelvin Hopkins: Labour Members have made the point that the certification officer ensures that trade unions keep their records up to date. I spent 23 years of my life working in the trade union movement. They are the most rigorously democratic and the best administered organisations that I have ever seen. The hon. Lady ought to recognise that.

Jo Swinson: I certainly recognise that trade unions play an important part in our national life, both in the workplace and more widely, and that they are a positive force in our communities. I also recognise that there is already significant regulation in place. That said, however, there is a requirement to keep lists of members accurate and up to date, but the certification officer does not have the full powers to ensure that that happens except when they are responding to a particular complaint. That is the very narrow issue that these clauses, and particularly clause 36, are designed to address.
	Before I take further interventions, let me mention the impact assessment. A full impact assessment was published, submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee and made available on gov.uk from 3 September. It was informed by evidence collected during targeted consultation over the summer. I apologise to the Committee that that was not placed in the Vote Office when it should have
	been, due to an oversight. It should have been there last week, of course. The situation has been rectified—that was done shortly after the issue was raised in the House. For the benefit of the Committee, let me cite the impact assessment. Using the best estimate figures that have been put together, the assessment identifies that the combined annual total cost of producing the membership audit certificates across all 166 unions will be £461,225—less than half a million pounds and, as has already been mentioned, about 6p per union member. At present, the certification officer can investigate only in response to a complaint from a union member. Clause 36 and the subsequent clauses are therefore an appropriate way to give union members and the general public greater confidence that the list is representative.

Nicholas Dakin: I am listening carefully as the Minister sets out her stall and I noted that she agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) about the effectiveness of the current processes. What problem is she trying to solve, and what is the evidence that there is a problem?

Jo Swinson: It is has been interesting that various hon. Members have highlighted some of the difficulties faced by unions when trying to keep large lists up to date, given the extent of churn. We recognise that considerable efforts are made, but that is a difficulty, so we want to reassure the public, union members and others in workplaces that proper processes are in place to make that happen. We are trying to plug a specific gap—

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Minister give way?

Jo Swinson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands why I wish to finish my response to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) before I give way again.
	Our modest and reasonable measure is a specific response to that gap, but it has given rise to a bit of hyperbole throughout the debate.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but in what I can describe only as her rather waffling answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), she failed to identify exactly what the problem is and why the measures are required. Will she tell the Committee what evidence she has to show that there is a problem?

Jo Swinson: If that is how the hon. Gentleman describes my answer to his hon. Friend, I would be interested to hear how he would describe several of the speeches we heard during the debate.
	Trade unions have a significant impact on the lives of people in our country. We want to ensure that their membership lists are up to date, and everyone has an interest in that being achieved. As hon. Members have said, we know that that can often be a challenging process, for good reasons, so we want to provide assurance that it will happen.
	Clause 36 will give wide assurance that unions know how to contact their members so that their decisions will reflect what their members want. We do not want to
	change the vital and positive role that unions play in society, but we do want to give confidence in their accountability.
	Under section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, unions have to ensure that their lists of members’ names and postal addresses is accurate and up to date
	“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
	That section allows any union member to find out whether there is an entry relating to him or her and to see a copy of the information. Clause 36 builds on that by making unions give the certification officer an annual membership audit certificate alongside the annual return that they already submit. Clause 37 provides a union with more than 10,000 members will have to appoint an independent assurer to produce the certificate, as well as setting out what is required for that process, but clause 36 states what smaller unions with fewer than 10,000 members will have to do. They will be able to have a union officer sign off the certificate with a statement that, to the best of their knowledge, the union has complied with its duties under section 24. I hope that the Committee will agree that that is a pretty light-touch approach and that the duty is not onerous in the slightest. Of course, we expect that smaller unions will have a less complicated register, so it is reasonable that a union officer would know the content well enough to be able to make such a statement.
	As the clause is designed to give widespread assurance, all unions of any size will have to let anyone who asks to see their most recent certificate to do so, for which they may charge a reasonable amount, if they want. The certification officer will have to keep copies of all certificates and to allow the public to look at them. Subsections (3) and (4) allow a trade union to fulfil the new duty on behalf of its branches and require that federated unions must comply with the new duty. Our aim is not to change what unions should already be doing to maintain their membership data, but to get them to provide assurance of what they are doing to their members and the public.

Katy Clark: rose—

Lady Hermon: rose—

Jo Swinson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) and then to the hon. Member for South Down.

Katy Clark: The Minister said that unions have some influence and she is trying to give assurance. Does she accept that trade unions and trade union members have very little power in society compared with many other organisations, such as multinationals and other vested interests? Does she not think it is inappropriate that she is focusing on this area rather than trying to give all of us more assurance that some of those other organisations which hold massive power in society are brought into check?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady raises a point that others have raised, which I will come to in my remarks about the regimes that are in place for different types of
	organisations. The trade unions have their particular tailored regime, which is appropriate. We would not necessarily want the same regime to apply to charities, trade unions and political parties. It is appropriate that we have systems in place that deal with those particular organisations.
	I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for North Down—apologies for getting the constituency name wrong.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for putting me in my right place in North Down. She has given the impression in her contribution this afternoon that the clause is just a tidying-up operation. If it is that, what consultation have the Government had with the trade union movement? What efforts have been made to reassure the trade unions that this is just a small tidying-up operation?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady raises a reasonable point. We carried out a targeted consultation exercise over the summer. We issued a discussion paper, to which we received 42 responses. This goes to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). Twenty-four of those responses were from trade unions, and a variety of employers, business organisations, and local and devolved Administrations also responded. It was important that we did that. I meet regularly with the Trades Union Congress general secretary. I have met her to discuss issues surrounding the Bill and I am due to do so again. It is important to have that positive relationship.
	As I am responding to the hon. Lady, I will respond to the point that she raised earlier in an intervention about an aspect of the terminology—“reasonable hours” as opposed to “reasonable time”. The terms mean the same thing and there is no legal difference, but the phrase “reasonable hours” is copied from what the certification officer already has to do in making available the union annual returns. In practice that will probably mean that they will be on the website, which will meet that requirement.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Jo Swinson: I will give way again to the hon. Lady, then I shall make progress as there are other groups of amendments that we will want to discuss.

Lady Hermon: I am enormously grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention from me. May I make a plea to the Government about drafting such a Bill? It is very difficult to make it comprehensible for those who are not legally qualified. It is very poor drafting that clause 36 states:
	“The Certification Officer must at all reasonable hours”,
	and that when we turn the page to proposed new section 24ZE we see that an assurer
	“has a right of access at all reasonable times”.
	May we please have some consistency in drafting?

Jo Swinson: I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Lady makes. Like her, I am not a lawyer—[Interruption.] I apologise. I am certainly not a lawyer; I am not sure what the hon. Lady’s background is. Legislation should be in plain English where possible,
	and that is something that I endeavour to advance within Government, but sometimes terms are taken from other pieces of legislation for very good reasons, to create consistency. I appreciate the point that she makes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jo Swinson: I said that I would make progress. I shall do that and then take some more interventions.
	It is worth noting that there are also obligations on employers to provide information. If an employer has recognised a union, they are already required to provide the union with information that is relevant for collective bargaining and good industrial relations practice. We plan to provide guidance for employers in relation to the information that they hold that will assist unions with meeting their new obligations.
	As has been outlined, there may be circumstances in which an employer has more information than the union on the names and addresses of employees who may be union members. For example, if a union member has their work address as a contact and the workplace moves, the member might forget to notify the union. Making sure that there is better guidance on how employers can assist unions to comply with all the requirements is an important part of what we are looking to do.
	I have covered clause 36 in principle. Before I come to the specific amendments, I will give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran).

Frank Doran: Everything the Minister has mentioned so far could be done within the existing system and without applying this further layer of bureaucracy. Is she aware of the cost of accountants these days? For a union such as Unison, which has over 1 million members, auditing the membership would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. The figures in the impact assessment are laughable.

Jo Swinson: I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. It is not a question of every single membership entry having to be audited; it is about the process the union has in place for doing so. The certificate needs to be provided to give assurance on that. He also said—a few Members mentioned this—that the proposed powers somehow exist already, but they are actually very narrowly drawn. The certification officer’s power to investigate a complaint by an individual member applies only to that individual’s membership record; it does not extend to other members in the organisation. Indeed, it does not give those who might not be a member of a trade union the ability to complain. Of course, a member might not know that there is a problem with their records. Indeed, if they are not receiving information from the union, they might not know when there is a ballot for a committee, for example.
	I will turn now to the specific amendments and respond to some of the points that have been raised. Amendment 103 would remove the annual duty to provide a membership audit certificate. Instead, the certificate would need to be submitted only if a complaint were received by the certification officer and he thought that it was necessary. Amendment 121 would go along with amendment 103 by removing the duty to appoint an assurer. I do not think that the amendments are useful, because they stop the key policy objective. I agree
	that there is clearly a difference of opinion between both sides of the Committee on the reasonableness of the measure, but that is why the Government do not support the amendments. The current arrangements just do not give that assurance, because they rely on members proactively checking the register. Even if they do check the register, they cannot see all of it and they do not know whether other names and addresses are up to date; and nor would they know who should and should not be on the register.
	Various Members have mentioned the difficulties of tracking membership. Indeed, the Engineering Employers Federation has commented that trade unions
	“do not have a unified way of tracking membership and it remains difficult for them to do so”.
	The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said that
	“Unions have stated difficulties at times maintaining the addresses of members”.
	Amendment 104 would allow for delaying the submission of a membership audit certificate if the union were appealing. I absolutely understand that unions do not want an assurer to send mistakenly or maliciously a qualified certificate to the certification officer without their knowing about it, but I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and hope to give some reassurance why. The current drafting states that the assurer will send the copy of the membership audit certificate to the certification officer only after it is provided to the union, which means that the union will already have seen the certificate and had that opportunity to talk with the assurer. Of course, it is worth noting that it is the union that will appoint the assurer, and it has every ability within the agreement it makes in appointing an assurer to say that it would like the opportunity to see the certificate and comment before it is sent off.

John McDonnell: I think that most of us are still mystified about the objectives of the clause, so I will put one scenario to the Minister to test its purpose. The clause will enable someone who is not a trade union member—a member of the Conservative party, for example—to contest the membership list. This is about communications between the union and its members, so if the union in the run up to the next general election, say, sends out a letter to its members urging them to vote for the Labour party, the Conservative party member, who is not a member of a trade union, could contest the accuracy of the membership list and, in that way, undermine the trade union’s ability to communicate with its members. That is possible under this legislation, and it betrays its purpose.

Jo Swinson: The certificate that will have been issued, and which will be available for any member of the public to look at, will show that the union has a proper process in place for maintaining its membership list. That will give that assurance to anybody who looks at it. It of course will not give the details of the names and addresses of the union members, as some Members seem to have suggested; it will simply give that assurance.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jo Swinson: I will make some progress, because many points were raised in the debate, but I will give way shortly.
	Amendment 106 would mean that an individual who wanted to see the membership audit certificate would have to pay the union’s administrative costs. That is not necessary, because under the Bill a union providing the certificate can do so for free or for a reasonable charge, as it sees fit. The union can already obtain payment, so the amendment is not necessary. I urge hon. Members, vainly perhaps, to withdraw their amendments.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) raised specific questions about the certification officer asking for powers. He referred to FOI requests. The “one in, two out” measure will come from the general stock of measures that BIS undertakes, although a significant burden is not being imposed. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would give the certification officer additional resources. Yes, we intend to do so; we anticipate that three members of staff will be needed to make sure the role can be properly carried out.
	I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who suggested that we should go significantly further in a whole range of ways. The issue is about giving confidence for the existing duty to keep membership lists up to date; it is not about political donations, funds or types of membership, as my hon. Friend suggested it should be. I reiterate that the current system is working well. There is a historically low level of industrial action at the moment, which is helpful.
	The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) accused the Government of insulting the unions and failing to recognise the benefits that they bring. I want to be absolutely clear, as I have been in previous statements to the House, that I agree that unions play an important role in the workplace through training and representation. The media and a lot of the debate focus on industrial action, but that is not representative of the role that trade unions play. All the provision does is require an assurance that existing obligations to keep members’ names and addresses up to date are properly undertaken. It is a reasonable and modest change that is pretty hard to disagree with.

Katy Clark: Does the hon. Lady not accept that there is a suspicion that the issue is about industrial action? If the assurer is to prepare for the audit and certification, surely that process could be challenged; it would be yet another matter that could be brought up in the context of an employer’s seeking an injunction to stop industrial action of some sort. Is she not simply creating more avenues for litigation?

Jo Swinson: The short answer is no. The longer one is that the case law is clear. As has been outlined in the past two or three years, small and inadvertent errors that would not have affected the outcome of a ballot are not grounds for an injunction, and it is right that that should continue.

Katy Clark: rose—

Jo Swinson: I want to make progress, because we want to scrutinise other elements of the Bill today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) made a powerful contribution. He mentioned that social pressure can be applied to make people go on strike; those at the workplace who are not members of a particular union may be affected by industrial action. They might be an example of those who would like reassurance about the updating processes for the membership lists.
	The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) asked whether we would commit to publishing legal advice. As he will know from his time as a Minister, the convention is that the Government do not publish such advice. I am, of course, happy to give reassurance on his point. Clause 36 requires the provision of the certificate but will not contain information about individual members, so the article 8 right to privacy is not breached. I am sure that when we discuss the next group of amendments we will come to some of those human rights, privacy and confidentiality issues.
	The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said that data would be revealed in some way, but the confidentiality of members’ details will still be subject to data protection rules, the Human Rights Act and the obligations of confidentiality in clause 37.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that the provisions would displace core union activity, but we should recognise that the changes are modest. Unions are already required to keep the register of names and addresses and of course we will work with unions and others to ensure that there is a smooth transition to the new system, supported by appropriate guidance.
	Analogies with other membership organisations were raised by various Members. As I outlined to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, charities are regulated by the Charity Commission, which has widespread powers that focus on financial management because of the importance of donors and beneficiaries. The commission can carry out regular supervision and monitoring, including compliance visits. If a charity is under investigation, the commission can freeze assets and suspend or remove trustees. In the case of companies, the Companies Act provides the regulatory powers. The information has to include names and addresses and dates of membership, and fines and penalties are in place for non-compliance with these duties. The IOD and the CBI are lobbying organisations incorporated by royal charter, which means that the Privy Council is responsible for significant aspects of their internal control. I doubt that unions would think that those regulatory frameworks were appropriate to their unique status. Trade unions have a unique set of powers. They have rights and obligations—for example, the ability to take industrial action without financial liability for the consequences on those it affects. That is a special set of rights and it is therefore appropriate that they have a tailored set of regulations.
	The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) said that it is hard to keep accurate records of a work force, particularly in sectors where they are very fluid, such as construction, where there is significant churn. I absolutely appreciate those points and agree with him. That is why it is important that good procedures are in place to provide assurance that the lists are up to date. That is qualified by the phrase,
	“as far as reasonably practicable.”
	We will take into account the difficulties that are encountered.
	The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made a thoughtful contribution in which he made good points about previous problems with great swings in policy direction from one Government to the next and the importance of trying to get agreement between the TUC and the CBI. There can often be common ground, as we find through the agreements on, say, the agency worker regulations or the way in which such organisations are able to work together through institutions such as the Low Pay Commission. He thinks that we are demonising trade unions, but I respectfully disagree. Many companies have very good relations with trade unions which play an important and welcome role. He over-eggs the impact that this measure will have.
	I have dealt with the consultation issue raised by the hon. Member for Wansbeck. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) made a number of points that mainly echoed others that had already been made and that I think I have dealt with. I appreciate that I may not have satisfied every member of the Committee. None the less, I have set out why clause 36 should stand part of the Bill and the amendments should be rejected.

Ian Murray: Thank you, Mr Sheridan, for chairing this debate.
	I thank all hon. Members who have spoken—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my hon. Friends the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer). We also heard from two Government Members—the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland).
	I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Minister, but let me put on record that this is yet another case of a Liberal Democrat doing the Tories’ dirty work for them in this Chamber: again, that has been left to her. We are over four hours into this debate and we have yet to hear one bit of evidence for clause 36 being necessary or what problem it is trying to remedy. The Minister has said absolutely nothing about that. The TUC, the certification officer, ACAS and BIS officials are still to produce any evidence at all about the problem in the system that this clause is trying to remedy.
	Before we test the will of the Committee on amendment 103, let me point out that Labour Members are saying clearly that if there is a problem, the Government should bring forward the evidence. The amendment would say to the certification officer that if a complaint is made by any third party and he decides that it is verifiable, he can then take the power, if he so wishes, to instigate action under the clause. That is a very modest change to a very draconian part of this ramshackle Bill.
	Finally, I remind Members that we are not talking about trade unions in the round; we are talking about the people who deliver the mail, serve in the shops, teach our children, care for the sick, look after the elderly, clean our streets, assemble our cars and build our houses. The Liberal Democrats should remember that and come into the Lobby to vote for amendment 103.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 241, Noes 292.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37
	 — 
	Duty to appoint an assurer etc

Ian Murray: I beg to move amendment 107, page 39, line 7, at end add—
	‘, and
	(c) to have a duty of confidentiality to the trade union and its members; and
	(d) to abide at all times by the trade union’s obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 to protect the information of members.’.

Jim Sheridan: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 108, page39,line16,at end insert—
	‘(3A) The conditions set out in an order under subsection (3)(a) shall include the qualifications, status and experience an assurer requires in order to qualify under that subsection.’.
	Amendment 110, page39,leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—
	‘(1) The appointment and removal of an assurer will be conducted as per the specification in section 49(1) and section 49(5) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.’.
	Amendment 109, page39,line46,at end insert—
	‘(e) The person has breached the confidentiality of the Trade Union, or
	(f) The person is in breach of his statutory duty or the terms of his appointment, by reason of incapacity or for any other reason which in the reasonable opinion of the union justifies his removal, or
	(g) There are any other reasonable circumstances where the continuation of the assurer would be deemed inappropriate.’.
	Amendment 111, page40,line12,leave out from ‘opinion,’ to ‘for’ in line 14 and insert—
	‘the trade union secured, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the entries in the register were accurate and up-to-date.’.
	Amendment 112, page40,line19,at end insert—
	‘(c) Whether, in the assurer’s opinion, the trade union has taken all reasonable steps to ensure their membership register is up to date taking into account—
	(i) that the union should not be held responsible for inaccuracies in cases where, in the assurer’s opinion, an employer is not sharing timely and accurate details, and
	(ii) any other aspects that, in the assurer’s opinion, have been out of the control of the trade union in the maintenance of the membership register.’.
	Amendment 166, page40,line29,at end insert—
	‘(4A) The Secretary of State will determine the definition of “satisfactory” and “not satisfactory” in this section and produce guidance for assurers.’.
	Amendment 116, page41,line1,leave out from ‘union’s’ to ‘such’ in line 2 and insert ‘data controller’.
	Amendment 115, page41,line4,at end insert—
	‘(c) has the right to make a reasonable request to any employer for information that the assurer considers necessary for the performance of the assurer’s functions.’.
	Amendment 117, page41,line4,at end insert—
	‘() where this does not conflict with the union’s responsibilities as set down by the Information Commissioner.’.
	Amendment 119, page41,line25,at beginning insert—
	‘(za) to comply with duties owed by him under the Data Protection Act 1998, and’.
	Amendment 118, page41,line28,leave out ‘all reasonable steps’ and insert ‘all steps necessary’.
	Amendment 120, page41,leave out lines 34 to 39.
	Clause stand part.

Ian Murray: I know you thoroughly enjoyed the debate on the previous group of amendments, Mr Sheridan, so it is great to see you in the Chair in this debate. I thank the Minister for her apology on the impact assessment. We had a committee meeting during the Division and have decided to accept her apology, even if the impact assessment arrived in the Vote Office at 1.53 pm—we understand that that is the official time recorded.
	Amendments 107, 116, 117, 119 and 120 address the concerns of trade unions, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, lawyers, trade unionists and organisations such as Liberty, which believe that clause 37 could result in the improper use of sensitive material and accidental disclosure. It also raises questions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned in his contribution on the previous group of amendments, about international law, specifically articles 8 and 11 of the European convention on human rights.
	Amendments 107 and 119 place a legal duty and obligation to provide total confidentiality and an express statutory duty of that confidentiality for the assurer, in addition to the oblique references already in proposed section 24ZF. The assurer should therefore have a statutory duty of confidentiality to the union and, more importantly, the union’s membership. The amendments also ensure that the assurer agrees not to engage in conduct likely to lead to a breach of a union’s obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.
	It should be noted that union membership is in the significant category of sensitive personal data. It is not known how far the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has consulted the Information Commissioner’s office on the Bill. There is a significant risk that the union might be held accountable for breaches by the assurer. Will the Minister address what discussions she has had with the Information Commissioner’s office on the new assurer position, and what its thoughts were on the ability of trade unions to both comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and be responsible as the data holder to an assurer who, by nature of the definition of the Bill, is independent from that data controller in terms of the trade union? The 1998 Act is clear and it may be worth considering this issue in detail, Mr Sheridan. When one overlays the Data Protection Act with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, we can see how unnecessary the proposed changes are.

Andrew Gwynne: Is it not the case that my hon. Friend’s amendment is necessary to make it clear in the Bill that the assurer picks up the union’s responsibilities to protect its personal data?

Ian Murray: That is exactly the purpose of all our amendments to clause 37: to ensure that any independent person, as described in the Bill—whether the assurer,
	the certification officer’s staff, or an investigator that might be appointed by the certification officer—is covered by existing data protection law and the European convention on human rights. That was a timely intervention, as it is important to run through the schedules to the Data Protection Act and relate them directly to our amendments, and the overlaying of clause 37 and other clauses in part 3.
	Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act lists the data protection principles in the following terms. I realise this is slightly technical, but it is worth running through them to ensure that we have got it absolutely right.
	“Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless—
	(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met…”—
	I will come back to that a little later, and, crucially, that—
	“(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.”
	It is a condition of schedule 2 that, because trade union membership is classed as sensitive personal data it has to have a category in schedule 3 too. Sensitive data includes trade union membership, so we have to take that category into account overriding schedule 2.
	Interestingly, section 4 of schedule 1 to the Act states clearly that
	“Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.”
	This is a strong requirement of the Act and in this context trade unions must abide by that condition as a data controller. There is already a strong obligation on trade unions under the current legislation, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—I wish there was a shorter way of saying that—to keep membership lists up to date. We have discussed that at length this afternoon in terms of legislation already in place to deal with many of the issues that the Minister deems to be a problem that have to be dealt with in the Bill.
	Appropriate technical and organisational measures should be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data, and against accidental loss, destruction of, or damage to, personal data. That accidental loss could be a significant hurdle when being processed by independent assurers or independent investigators appointed by the certification officer, is a key concern for many stakeholders. The responsibility for the data under the Data Protection Act lies with the data controller at the trade union. They will be responsible for the actions of independent bodies looking at that trade union’s membership list.
	That is a genuine concern, of which the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee stated in its recommendations:
	“The Government must address these concerns during the course of proceedings on the Bill.”
	I do not think they have, which is the reason for some of our amendments in this grouping. As we have said, trade union membership falls under “sensitive personal data”, which means personal data consisting of information about many aspects of a person, including—these are the important aspects for this Bill—their political opinions and whether they are a member of a trade union, within
	the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The presumption is that because information about such matters could be used in a discriminatory fashion and is likely to be of a private nature, it needs to be treated with greater care than other personal data. The nature of those data is also a factor in deciding what security is appropriate in securing them. That is the purpose of amendments 116 and 117.

Julie Elliott: Does my hon. Friend agree that if our amendments dealing with this issue are not accepted, there is a danger that such sensitive information, as classified by the Data Protection Act, will become much more vulnerable?

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly good point. One of the key aspects of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is to ensure that trade unions’ membership lists are up to date. The current categories are set out in sections 24(1) and (2) of the 1992 Act—my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) spoke about them a few hours ago—which contain provisions to ensure that anyone unhappy with their personal data being held by the trade union can apply to the certification officer for a ruling on whether those data should be held. There are therefore already strict rules about the data, which is right, given, say, blacklisting and whether data on trade union membership become an issue.
	The purpose of amendments 116 and 117 is to restrict data collection in a trade union to collection from the data controller only. The data controller can subsequently obtain the required information from individual branches or sections, as mentioned in the Bill, but the responsibility for that must come from the data controller of the union, who has the legal obligations both under the Data Protection Act and their responsibilities to the Information Commissioner. Inquiries to other centres makes the job of the data controller near impossible. Trade unions manage their membership data carefully; that should be explicitly maintained in the Bill.
	Such considerations have given rise to a fear that part 3, and clause 37 in particular, could result in a new scandal of people being blacklisted for being members of a trade union. That is the reasoning behind amendment 120, which would restrict disclosure of a member’s data to where the member had consented—that is, given explicit consent under the Data Protection Act—and the investigation of criminal proceedings. The list of other such circumstances set out in clause 37 is unhelpful in dealing with people’s data protection concerns and the blacklisting issues that might arise. Proposed new section 24ZG(3) of the 1992 Act, as set out in clause 37, is too widely drafted and creates other legal responsibilities that the data controller might not be able to meet.
	In the last couple of years we have seen the increasing exposure of blacklisting activities in some sectors, in which individuals have concerns about joining a trade union for fear of victimisation at work and loss of employment. Increasing powers for state officials to access union membership records and addresses can only increase the deterrent against such activities. May I respectfully suggest to the Minister that, rather than increasing the regulation of trade unions through this Bill—which might increase the risk of blacklisting—the Government should take active steps to abide by the
	decision taken by this House back in February, after the Opposition day debate on blacklisting, to instigate an inquiry, release the information held by the Information Commissioner’s Office about the victims of blacklisting and look at a compensation package for those on the blacklists?

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. Is not the nub of the issue—which I think he is coming to—that although the purpose of clause 37 is to increase transparency and confidence among the general public, it is likely to have the opposite effect for trade union members? If they felt that their personal data were at risk of falling into the wrong hands, that would have the opposite impact on union membership.

Ian Murray: It absolutely would. Given the evidence of blacklisting that has emerged over the past few years, particularly in relation to the inquiry by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume either that someone might not wish to join a trade union, or that an existing member might wish to leave, on the ground that their membership could affect their employment prospects. That matter has not been dealt with in the Bill, as a result of the slapdash way in which it has been put together and placed before the House.
	The Data Protection Act imposes strict conditions for processing sensitive personal data. Anyone processing such data must satisfy one of more of the conditions for processing that apply specifically to such sensitive data, as well as one of the general conditions that apply in every case relating to non-sensitive data. It is arguable that the Bill does not satisfy those conditions, which merely emphasises how incompatible it is with the Data Protection Act.
	The conditions in schedule 3 of the Act for processing sensitive personal data are as follows. First, it is necessary for the data subject to have
	“given his explicit consent to the processing of the personal data.”
	The members would therefore have to consent explicitly, meaning that the assurer would have to contact all the members on the membership list, should they require the data. That would surely be impractical and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) said earlier, a requirement that the assurer contact everyone to obtain their explicit consent would impose an onerous burden of cost and bureaucracy on the trade unions.
	The second condition in the Act states that the processing should be
	“necessary for the purposes of exercising or performing any right or obligation which is conferred or imposed by law on the data controller in connection with employment.”
	Unless I am mistaken, however, the proposal in the Bill has nothing to do with employment law. The third condition states that the processing must be necessary
	“(a) in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or another person, in a case where—
	(i) consent cannot be given by or on behalf of the data subject, or
	(ii) the data controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject”.
	That should not apply in the case of a trade union member. The processing must also be necessary
	“in order to protect the vital interests of another person, in a case where consent by or on behalf of the data subject has been unreasonably withheld.”
	I would imagine that, in relation to trade union membership, those conditions could be satisfied fairly easily. It is not clear that any of the proposed process is designed to protect the individual. It could therefore be argued that the Government have failed to tell us what problem they are trying to resolve, and what process they are trying to protect.
	The fourth condition states that the processing must be carried out by a not-for-profit organisation and should not involve disclosing personal data to a third party unless the individual consents. Extra limitations apply to this condition, in that individual consents are required for disclosure to a third party. Will the Minister tell us whether the assurer or the certification officer are third parties? Would any investigator appointed by the certification officer be deemed to be a third party, given that they are deemed in the legislation to be independent? That would not be compatible with the responsibility of the data controller in the trade union.
	In addition to those conditions in the Data Protection Act, regulations set out several other conditions for processing sensitive personal data. Their effect is to permit such processing for a range of other purposes—typically, those cases that are substantially in the public interest and that must necessarily be carried out without the explicit consent of the individual. The Government would have to put up a strong argument to convince us that checking a trade union’s membership list was substantially in the public interest, and I cannot see how the provisions in part 3 of the Bill can be deemed to be fulfil those conditions. It is difficult to construct a public interest test in relation to the annual membership list of a trade union. The nature of the consent required to satisfy the condition for processing sensitive data must be explicit. The Act particularly mentions the word “explicit”, yet it is not mentioned in the proposed new clause in the Bill.
	We have tabled amendment 108 to ensure that the assurer is a person of suitable calibre. The Secretary of State should explicitly set out regulations to ensure that the assurer can demonstrate a strong knowledge of and previous compliance with the Data Protection Act and other regulations relating to data protection. Our amendment 109 provides for the removal of an assurer if they are in breach of any of the confidentiality conditions, or if the trade union has any reason to believe that it would be inappropriate for them to remain in post. Amendment 118 would raise the bar on confidentiality, requiring the assurer to take “all steps necessary”, instead of the present “all reasonable steps”, to secure obligations under the Data Protection Act and other legislation.

Ian Mearns: The inherent reason for legislation and regulation of trade unions seems to be that some of those unions donate money to the Labour party, but can my hon. Friend find any provisions within this Bill that impose similar regulations on organisations such as the United and Cecil Club or the Royal Automobile Club, which donate money to
	the Conservative party? Given that the RAC is a membership organisation, would it be covered by this legislation?

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. No, the RAC would not be covered by part 3, which deals exclusively with trade union membership. In our lengthy debate on the preceding group of amendments, we found that the Conservative party will not even tell us how many members it has, despite the fact that it could well be argued that it has a major vested interest in public opinion and how the laws of this country are determined. Should not the Conservative party therefore be obliged to tell us how many members it has and whether or not its membership lists are accurate? That seems to be falling on deaf ears with the Government. I pressed Members from across the Committee to provide a figure on Conservative party membership, but it has still to come forward.

Ian Mearns: rose—

Jim Sheridan: Order. I remind the Committee that we must stick to debating clause 37; we seem to be wandering away from it.

Ian Murray: Thank you, Mr Sheridan. I shall certainly try not to wander off topic.
	It is worth pondering the question of the compatibility of these provisions with the European convention on human rights. A vast number of organisations, including the well-respected organisation Liberty, has raised that issue. Liberty believes that part 3 should be removed in its entirety, and I could not agree more. It believes the proposals breach article 11 on freedom of assembly and association, which takes us back to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) who was worried about the impact of this part of the Bill on trade union members, and article 8. For many individuals, membership of a trade union is a deeply private choice.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend accept that if there is a breach of the European convention, it would be open to trade union members to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights against the UK Government on the basis that their freedom of assembly has been denied?

Ian Murray: That is essentially what Liberty is pointing out in its contribution, which I think is a valid and strong one. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) when we debated clause 36 that this is probably what the Government want to do—they want to wrap trade unions up in their own membership lists and taking legal action about them, as well as having to deal with the assurer and certification officer, rather than getting on with the job that their members pay their membership fees for, which is to represent them in the workplace. Both those issues are valid and might be a consequence of this part of the Bill.
	I was saying that for many individuals, membership of a trade union is a deeply private choice—one that they wish to keep confidential for perfectly legitimate reasons, whether they be about blacklisting or otherwise.
	Part 3 and clause 37 in particular open up the possibility that these confidential matters could be made public. For example, Liberty referred to a recent case in which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs decided to suspend its dispute with Equity about providing personal information relating to its members. Wide-ranging powers for the certification officer are, according to Liberty’s lawyers, incompatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights.
	On the power to request other documents, Liberty states:
	“The documents of which the CO, authorised persons and inspectors can order production is very wide; it will potentially include matters such as…private correspondence between a union and its members (e.g. about a member’s affiliation to a political fund; membership of an internal section of a union combating discrimination; communications about internal grievances within an employer) and…internal union communications with its membership, such as membership campaigns and industrial action.”
	These are all matters that an individual would understandably want to keep private, but the Government proposals will open these up to bodies and individuals who have no duty of confidentiality to the trade union itself, which legally holds the data.
	Additionally, future employees may be put off from joining a trade union, as we have already heard this evening, in the knowledge that the union could be required to provide their membership register to a Government body for “any good reason”, which appears in the Bill. That emphasises the point about blacklisting and the strong arguments over freedom of association and trade union membership.
	There are three tests for determining whether an interference with the rights in article 11 is justified. This precedent was set in The Sunday Timesv. the UK case. It is justified first where the interference corresponds to a pressing social need; secondly, according to whether it is
	“proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued”;
	and, thirdly, according to whether the reasons given by the national authority to justify it are “relevant and sufficient”. Liberty believes that the changes proposed in part 3 do not pass those tests and that clause 37 does little or nothing to provide reassurance, and it is the driver of our amendment.

Stephen McCabe: Given the seriousness of the duty that is imposed on assurers, I wonder what penalty might be incurred by an assurer who deliberately or negligently failed to observe his responsibilities in respect of confidentiality.

Ian Murray: Under the Bill as it stands, the assurer can be removed, but owing to the weakness of the provisions relating to data protection, it is not clear whether he can be automatically removed if he does not abide by the Data Protection Act. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer that question. Our amendments are intended to give trade unions the power to remove an independent assurer if they feel that he is causing a trade union data controller to be in breach of his duties.
	Let me now deal with the question of whether clause 37 is compliant with article 11. The first issues that emerged from the Sunday Times v. United Kingdom case were “legitimate aim” and “pressing social need”. The Government’s discussion paper states:
	“at present complaints to the Certification Officer (CO) about the register can only be made by trade union members and no-one else. In addition, members only have a right to see whether and how their own details are recorded. This means it is difficult for members to make a complaint in relation to the accuracy of the membership register as a whole.”
	Liberty rightly argues that that is not a legitimate aim, as the position is already adequately covered by current legislation, and
	“the independent scrutineer”
	—for whom the Bill also provides—
	“is required to examine the entirety of register of their own volition and report any issues to the union.”
	That brings us back to the arguments relating to clause 36. Again, these provisions already exist in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The same reasoning lies behind amendment 110, which aligns clause 37 and provision for the appointment and removal of assurers—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe)—with the obligations conferred on scrutineers by section 49(1) of the Act. Any individual challenge to the regulator must involve investigation of the accuracy of the register as a whole, not just the member’s own incorrect entry. The current framework in section 24 of the Act allows for that.

Andrew Gwynne: Does not the scenario that my hon. Friend is setting out throw yet another potential problem into the mix? Would it not start to undermine the perceived neutrality of certification officers by dragging them into industrial disputes from which they have so far been excluded?

Ian Murray: That is a legitimate point. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present during the last debate, but I can tell him that the certification officer figures are pretty stark. There have been 10 determinations since 1987, none in the last eight years and six between 2000 and 2004, of which five were dismissed and the sixth did not even constitute a formal determination. A new, erroneous part of the Bill could easily cause a certification officer to be dragged into a position that affected his neutrality—which, incidentally, trade unions and their members respect. Unions and certification officers work closely together, and certification officers are always keen to make the point that they are not opposed to each other, but share the aim of ensuring that unions operate correctly and within the law.
	Let me now deal with the proportionality issue that arose from the case relating to article 11 of the European convention on human rights. Liberty states that the current regime satisfies the requirement that scrutiny be undertaken to ensure public confidence in the status of any register, and that the current measures to undertake that scrutiny are proportionate.
	The increased powers of the certification officer are also disproportionate. First, it may invoke its increased powers if it thinks there is good reason to do so. That is very broadly drawn, and what constitutes a good reason in any case? Might it be a vexatious claim from a national newspaper to the certification officer to have a look at a particular membership list? That was the driver behind our amendment 103 to the previous clause, which the Government have just rejected.
	Secondly, the certification officer can view not only the register, but any other document that may be relevant
	to determining whether there is a breach of section 24(1) of the 1992 Act and it can require people to give explanations.
	Thirdly and ultimately, under clause 37 as currently written, the certification officer does not owe a duty of confidentiality to the union. The addition of a third-party inspector would be particularly intrusive and that inspector owes a duty of confidentiality only to the certification officer, not the union.
	Liberty rightly concluded:
	“These measures clearly go beyond what is necessary and proportionate to achieve any legitimate aim behind the proposals, if indeed there is one at all, and as such constitute a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.”
	There is, indeed, a compelling argument to be made that clause 37 breaches article 11. The justification for that claim arises from the fact that there is already legislation in place to deal with many of these issues.
	Amendments 111, 112, 166 and 115 are intended to clarify the need for a trade union to take “all reasonable steps” to ensure membership lists are accurate. We discussed some of that language in our debate on the amendments to clause 36. This is completely consistent with obligations under the 1992 Act to take all reasonable steps. That language and responsibility should be reflected in clause 37. There will be an inconsistency of language if we remove the reference to taking reasonable steps in the 1992 Act and replace it with language that is more stringent on the trade unions.
	The primary responsibility for the alterations to any membership list lies with the individual. That is already set out in section 24(1) of the Act. However, all too often a union member may move house, change jobs or even pass away and those details will not be passed on to the union membership officer for recording in a timely fashion. In some circumstances, it cannot be reasonable for a trade union to be held wholly responsible for every part of a membership list. People can take a complaint to the certification officer resulting in an in-depth investigation at great cost to both the public purse and the trade unions, when the 1992 Act clearly states that the responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of an individual’s data on a trade union membership list lies with the individual, not the union. If the union has taken “all reasonable steps” to make sure that list is accurate, such a matter should not fall within the remit of this Bill.
	It should be the case that the assurer can make a determination that the union has, in so far as is reasonably practicable, ensured the entries in the membership register are accurate. That is what amendments 111 and 112 would achieve. They would give the assurer the power to qualify the membership audit certificate to say that information from employers or members has not come forward in a timely fashion and the union has taken all steps to ensure the information is accurate.
	The issuing of any membership certificate will be based on information for just a snapshot in time of that particular moment and day. We have learned from the—late—impact assessment that about 9% or 10% of trade union membership flows in or out of a trade union at any given period. For a major trade union, that amounts to an awful lot of people to keep track of. If a union has taken “all reasonable steps” to ensure their
	membership list is accurate, it should be taken into account that the list will only be a snapshot of a particular moment in time. It should be possible to clearly state on the audit certificate that any inaccuracies are not the fault of the trade union and therefore the audit certificate is issued with that qualification. The clause as currently drafted would not allow for that.
	Importantly, for that process to operate correctly the employers also have a duty of responsibility to the trade union membership audit certification process. Amendment 115 would give the assurer the right to access reasonable information from employers if it was determined that that information would be necessary for the performance of the assurer in determining the accuracy of a membership list. It would also allow for access to data that may satisfy the assurer that the trade union has taken all reasonable steps in compiling the membership register. Many unions have indicated that a lack of information from employers provided in an efficient manner is the main cause of the vast majority of inaccuracies in their membership lists. Giving the assurer the powers to make reasonable requests to employers for information means that there can be confidence that membership registers are indeed accurate. If anything comes out of this process and this bad part of the Bill, it might be that the assurer, as an independent person, could help the trade unions with some of those relationships with the employers, to ensure that the data coming from the employers make the lists that trade unions have far more accurate.

Ian Mearns: One wonders what thought is driving the Government to ask trade unions to do what the Bill requires. I cannot for one moment see a situation where the Government would ask for the same accuracy in electoral lists held by returning officers in particular areas at any given time. It would be almost impossible to provide. The amount of bureaucracy and administration required to keep such lists up to date would be beyond the financial capability of most local authorities.

Ian Murray: That is a good comparison to make, because I would bet that every one of the 166 trade unions registered with the certification officer in this country has far better membership records than any electoral register held by an electoral office. That is not a criticism of the valuation joint boards or local councils; it is simply because people are transient and move in and out all the time, so it is impossible to keep a 100% accurate record. I would guess that the trade union membership lists are far more accurate than such electoral registers.
	Finally, I wish to deal with the rather unusual terminology used in clause 37. The word “satisfactory” appears in the proposed new section 24ZD(3) whereas the term “not satisfactory” appears in the proposed subsection (4). The use of that incredibly strange terminology could result in a lack of consistency and direction for assurers. It only fuels the fire in terms of us thinking that that this piece of legislation is designed either to create additional casework or additional case law as some of these issues are taken through the courts, or to keep trade unions busy in the courts trying to justify what is “satisfactory” and what is “not satisfactory”.
	The Oxford English Dictionary defines satisfactory as either
	“satisfying demands, expectations, or requirements; adequate”
	or “atoning” for one’s sins. I hope that the Liberal Democrat Minister will satisfactorily atone for her sins before the next general election—[Interruption.] I would be more than satisfied if she atones for her sins by accepting our amendments on this part of the Bill or, indeed, deletes the clause altogether.
	Just how badly this Bill is drafted is shown by the fact that it contains such wide definitions of a term that relates to its fundamental objective in terms of the production of a membership audit certificate. Will the Minister, or indeed the Secretary of State, be determining by guidance what “satisfactory” and what “not satisfactory” means in this context? Will the definitions of and guidance on those two terms have them as exact polar opposites? It is important that that is made clear.
	I would term this entire clause 37 as not satisfactory, in sympathy with what is not a very satisfactory Bill. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the Data Protection Act, the significant and real concerns about blacklisting, and the responses from lawyers from Liberty and various other organisations about the inadequacies of this clause in respect of the European convention on human rights. I ask hon. Members to support our amendments.

Ian Lavery: Like most people in the Chamber, I am unaware of why we need assurers. The certification officer, under the trade union and labour relations—TULR—regulations, clearly states that when a trade union submits its annual accounts, its AR21, it must also submit a copy of the names and addresses of the membership. I am puzzled—discombobulated, perhaps—by the fact that the Government are suggesting that we need somebody in the middle to ensure that that happens, because if a union does not submit its membership with its AR21, it is in big trouble with the certification officer.
	I might be corrected on this, but—perhaps because he has not been consulted—the certification officer’s website does not refer to whether many trade unions are submitting their accounts under the AR21 without submitting the names and addresses. Why on earth—please, somebody tell me why—are we now looking to operate with someone called an assurer? I am assured already, Mr Sheridan. I worked in the trade union movement and greatly disliked all the regulations heaped on the unions by the Conservative Government, but, as with everything else, we had to forge ahead. We adhered to the law.
	I am puzzled. I am concerned about the fact that trade unions must amend their rulebooks to provide for the appointment and removal of an assurer. Who are those assurers? Their job is simply to make sure that the union, as far as practicable, can provide what the Bill requires in terms of the names and addresses of members. For fear of repeating myself, I am just desperate for an answer. There is no need for it.

Nicholas Dakin: Is my hon. Friend as perplexed as I am that this is the second clause to contain a solution looking for a problem?

Ian Lavery: Of course it is. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	What qualifications will the assurers—classed as independent under these provisions—need? What will make them qualified? Will it be that they are thoroughly decent people who dislike certain things or like other things? We should remember that it will be incumbent on the trade union to do this under its rulebook.

Ian Mearns: My hon. Friend is asking about the requirements of the job specification and person specification for an assurer. It seems to me that they must include the spite and vindictiveness reflected in the Government’s attitude to trade unions as seen in the Bill.

Ian Lavery: Although I fully agree with my hon. Friend, there are probably better ways of doing it. I fear that again I am repeating myself, but everything the assurer is supposed to do is carried out under the TULR regulations.

Julie Elliott: In my trade union, the rulebook can be changed only by a change of rule motion to congress, and a rule change congress happens every two years. Has my hon. Friend any idea how my trade union—the GMB, one of the biggest trade unions—could comply by making the change to the rulebook under the restrictions the Bill will place on it for the 12 months prior to a general election?

Ian Lavery: It is up to a trade union and its membership to decide what they want in that union’s rules. It should not be for Government diktat to insist what an independent trade union should and should not have in its rulebook—surely that is undemocratic. Under the democratic process, what should and should not be in a union’s rulebook is decided at conferences following discussions among delegates from the regions, not by the coalition Government. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point because if the Bill is passed, must the 166 trade unions on the certification officer’s website immediately call conferences so that they can adhere to the new legislation? What will happen if they do not?

Ian Murray: As always, my hon. Friend is making a fantastic contribution, but if he reads several of the qualifications in the impact assessment, he will see that the strange thing is that the vast majority of the unions— 120 or more—will self-certify their membership audit certificates because they are so small.

Ian Lavery: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, but it makes us ask why on earth the clauses are being proposed in the first place.
	Why are we having assurers and who are they likely to be? With their position layered between the trade union movement and the certification officer, will they be legally qualified? Will they be lawyers or, as is likely, accountants, or will they just be thoroughly decent people? Will they simply be independent people? Could they be people in this House? We need to examine this extra layer of bureaucracy. There is no need for it whatsoever, but if we must have these assurers, who on earth will they be?

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is right that we need more clarity from the Minister about the role of the assurer and who the Government expect will take
	that on. Is that not why Labour Front Benchers were right to table amendment 109, which proposes conditions under which an assurer may not be reappointed, thus allowing a union to terminate any contract with them? That could address the situation of an assurer who worked for a law firm that was advising an employer with which the union was in dispute, because that person would clearly have a conflict of interest between their union role and that of advising the employer.

Ian Lavery: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and although we have only started to scratch the surface, the proposal is getting worse by the minute.

Paul Flynn: I am following my hon. Friend’s speech with interest. I share his puzzlement, but there might be a plausible explanation of why the role is being created. We know that great hordes of Tory and Lib Dem Members will be unemployed after the 2015 election, so this might well be a job creation programme to allow them to become assurers.

Ian Lavery: I understand my hon. Friend’s point, although he puts it somewhat differently than I would.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to how the appointment of a duly appointed assurer could be terminated. Amendment 119 is simple. Under proposed new section 24ZC(3) an assurer’s appointment can be terminated if
	“(a) a resolution has been passed at a general meeting of the trade union appointing somebody else instead or providing expressly that the person is not to be re-appointed”—
	whatever that means—or
	“(b) the person has given notice to the union in writing of the person’s unwillingness to be re-appointed”
	or
	“(c) the person is not qualified for the appointment in accordance with section 24ZB”.
	If he is not qualified, how can he be sacked? He should not have the job in the first place. This is an outrage. It just needs some common sense to row back from these provisions.

Stephen McCabe: On page 4 of the Government’s publication, “Reducing Regulation Made Simple”, the Government promise to free civil society groups from “unnecessarily burdensome regulation” so that they can “innovate, diversify and grow”. Shall we get the Minister a copy before we make any further progress on the Bill?

Ian Lavery: That would be helpful; it could be part of the consultation process, which has been sadly lacking in the case of this Bill.
	The fourth way of getting rid of a duly appointed assurer is if
	“(d) the person has ceased to act as an assurer by reason of incapacity.”
	That is fair enough. However, Opposition amendment 109 sets out additional conditions under which an assurer may not be re-appointed, to allow a union to terminate the appointment of an assurer if
	“(e) The person has breached the confidentiality of the Trade Union, or
	(f) The person is in breach of his statutory duty or the terms of his appointment, by reason of incapacity or for any other reason which in the reasonable opinion of the union justifies his removal, or
	(g) There are any other reasonable circumstances where the continuation of the assurer would be deemed inappropriate.”
	That is fair. If a trade union has complied with the legislation and appointed an assurer, it should be up to the trade union to get rid of the assurer in those circumstances.
	I could speak all day on the amendments—[Hon. Members: “Go on!”]—but others wish to speak. The Bill is totally flawed. I have no confidence in the clause, but it could have been worse if the assurer were appointed by someone else. If the assurer had been imposed on trade unions, that would have presented a bigger difficulty. Perhaps someone can tell me what would happen if the trade unions change their rulebooks, which in my view they should not need to do. They should not be dictated to by Government legislation.
	The rulebook governs the trade union. It is the Bible of that trade union. What happens if, once the Bill is passed, Lenny McCluskey rings me up and says, “Mr Lavery, would you be an assurer for Unite?”? Would I be within my rights to say, “Of course I would”? Am I independent? Could I say, “Lenny, how much will you pay us?”? That is how daft the clause is. Where is the independence? Is anyone who was elected democratically by the rulebook of a union subject to challenge by the Secretary of State if they become an assurer? Do they have to be accepted by someone in Government to validate their independence, or can the unions pick who they want, pay them what they want, get what they want and submit what they would normally send in for the AR21?
	Another problem is if these people are not independent. Are these assurers—what a name; surely whoever wrote this could have come up with a better one—there to “assure” the certification officer that what the trade unions say is correct? Good grief! This must be one of the worst-written pieces of legislation ever to come before the House. Government Members are embarrassed about it. That is why we have not seen a soul on their Benches today. It is unbelievable that they have wheeled out the Liberal Democrats to speak on this Bill. Sometimes people never learn. Well, let us see what happens.
	There is huge potential for an increase in blacklisting. Adding this extra layer of bureaucracy will mean that the assurer will have powers under the Data Protection Act, together with the certification officer, to go to a trade union within reasonable hours and demand to see the names, addresses and other details of its members. We already have the problem of blacklisting in the trade union movement, which at least the Liberal Democrats have accepted, because the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has said that he understands that there has been a problem and that if we have evidence that blacklisting is continuing he is prepared to do something about it. Fair game, but we all understand that it still takes place.
	Blacklisting is a scourge on society. It means that ordinary, hard-working people find themselves unemployed. The construction industry is a great example of this. People finish a job and apply for one elsewhere with a different company, but find that there are these secret
	organisations. Who is to say that the chairman of one of those organisations—we will not know who they are, because the organisations are secret—could not be an assurer for one of the major trade unions?

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the impact of blacklisting on ordinary working people. It is something that we should all be concerned about. Is that not also why it was right for Opposition Front Benchers to table amendment 117, which would make it clear that a union should not have to provide information when doing so would compromise its obligations to protect members’ personal data under the Data Protection Act? That is absolutely crucial, and it is the least that the Government should concede today.

Ian Lavery: That is a very important point, and it was discussed earlier. There is a legal contradiction in relation to the trade union’s obligations under the TULR regulations to adhere to the Data Protection Act, which protects members’ private and personal details from being released. The new legislation gives powers to the likes of the assurer. Who knows who these assurers will be and what they could do with that information? It is therefore very important that we look at this. These assurers could be anybody. It would be very difficult to know whether they are part of an organisation that assists in blacklisting. The confidentiality of people in the workplace is a live issue. Why add another layer of bureaucracy by having these assurers? It is absolute poppycock. It is nonsense. Whoever dreamt it up should be fired. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are affected by blacklisting and the situation could get an awful lot worse if the Opposition amendments are not accepted. Like many others here, I am sure, I have spoken to people who were not even aware that they were on a blacklist but subsequently found out that, for years, the reason why they had been unemployed, their kids had not had the best uniforms at school and they had been on benefits was that they had been on a blacklist. That seriously concerns me.
	There is a huge problem with confidentiality and with conflict resulting from the legal interpretation of the Data Protection Act and the 1992 Act. We have to support the amendments and try to kick out this absolutely hopeless Bill.

Julie Elliott: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), with whom I have worked in the trade union movement in my region for far too many years.
	Clause 37 is all about the implications of appointing an assurer. As other Members have said, we have to draw to the Government’s attention the irony of the enormous added burden that the clause will impose on trade unions, given that we work in the most regulated part of the voluntary sector. The provision is absolutely unnecessary and is politically motivated. I had to say that before I turn to the two amendments I am most concerned about.
	Why do people join trade unions? Sometimes it is because their friends join, and sometimes in their workplace it is just the done thing to join. Some people join to have an insurance policy in case they get into trouble or picked on. Many join when they are first employed and want to maintain their membership as they get promoted up the ladder.
	In workplaces where the majority are in a trade union, there are no secrets. Everybody knows who is in the union and it is common for both the lowest paid and most senior members of staff to be in the trade union. When I was a lay rep, I negotiated on behalf of my members and the senior manager I was negotiating with was a member of my branch of my trade union. That is common when a workplace has a high density of union membership.
	However, in other workplaces, people who rise up the ladder and become senior managers may not want their managerial colleagues or the work force to know that they are in a trade union. Do not think that it is just those at the bottom end who do not want people to know that they are in a trade union.
	People are also at their most vulnerable when there is no recognition in a workplace. Sometimes their jobs are under threat. People get victimised out of the door because the management have found out that they are union members; I have seen that on numerous occasions as a union official. As we discuss the clause, we have to look at the real world and how things work in practice, rather than at what is, frankly, an academic diatribe.

Andrew Gwynne: In the real world, my hon. Friend, like me, will have received hundreds of e-mails and letters about part 2 of the Bill. At her recent advice surgeries, how many people have been saying, “Do you know what, Julie, we need to appoint an assurer to ensure openness and transparency in the trade unions”?

Julie Elliott: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that not a single person has said that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, what does “assurer” even mean? It is such a nonsense of a description. As I said, we have to work in the real world. Good legislation needs to understand and relate to the real world, but nothing in clause 37 does, according to my knowledge and experience.
	On amendment 112, let us look at the real world—the practicalities. This is about employers sharing information and accurate details with trade unions. Where there is a good relationship and a good recognition agreement, the unions work hand in hand with employers because if businesses do well, union members do well, and there is therefore complete transparency, openness and sharing of information. However, if that situation does not exist, that is not the case. The TULR regulations already set the requirements on the maintenance of the membership system. Various rulings have said that reasonable steps have to be taken to make sure that the membership records are accurate.
	In my personal experience—that is where we can all draw our information from—bad employers will do anything to make trade union records wrong. That does not happen only in relation to membership checks for industrial action ballots, which are the most onerous and time-consuming things a trade union official will ever do. In can be a case of trying to get recognition in a company where members have been recruited. Usually it is when members in an unrecognised work force have problems that they go to a trade union. Time, energy and effort will have been spent recruiting the number of members to hit the threshold required to be able to apply for recognition. It is unbelievable the steps that employers will take to try to scupper those numbers. They will suddenly take on temporary workers. If the union is applying for recognition for a particular part of
	the work force, they will move people from one part of the company to another to suddenly boost the numbers so that the required percentage is not reached. The idea that employers of that mindset will share information about our members is ridiculous.
	I would like to run through some of the things that we did when I was a trade union official to try to ensure that our membership records were as up to date as possible. A couple of times a year we sent out magazines to every single member of the trade union, and there was always a big advert saying, “If you move house, change jobs or change your telephone number, let us know.” It has become increasingly hard to keep membership records accurate. Historically people had land lines and did not change their telephone number; nowadays, a lot of people do not have land lines and mobile phone numbers can change quite frequently. There are an enormous number of inaccurate phone numbers in the records of trade unions, as there will be, I suggest, in any organisation. The situation is incredibly difficult. Any other mailing to members would have another advert or a paragraph saying, “If any of your details have changed please let us know.” We had branch audits where it would be a specific task in a certain branch to go through the membership records and physically talk to people about them. I do not think that trade unions could do any more to keep track of their members.
	Another issue is that the world has changed. This goes back to my point about having to be practical; in my view, nothing in this clause is practical. Trade union workplace branches, which historically the unions were built on, virtually do not exist any more because the world of work has changed. People do not start work when they leave school and stay there until they retire. We do not have mass employers of thousands of people where people remain in their jobs and can gain promotion and go through the ranks in one company. That is not today’s world of work. In those days, it was quite straightforward to keep track of the membership.
	All those things have made the situation more difficult. I hate the idea of what the clause proposes. It is saying that some random person on the street—the assurer, whoever this person is and from whatever background—could challenge what is happening and say, “You haven’t kept your membership records correct.” What is the level of leeway going to be? Where will reasonableness come into this?

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case against the Bill. Given her vast experience of involvement in the trade union movement, is she able to think of any circumstances in which a trade union would think it was in its own interests not to keep accurate membership records?

Julie Elliott: No, absolutely not. Trade unions would welcome anything to help them keep more accurate records, because of the amount of time they spend trying to communicate with their members. That argument is a misnomer—it is ridiculous.
	On amendment 117, the issue that I am particularly concerned about—for the reasons I gave earlier about the vulnerability of people who join trade unions—relates
	to the Data Protection Act and the obligations on trade unions to keep information safe and secure and to not let anybody else access it. I would not like my personal information passed randomly to everybody and asunder. Some of my information is public, but my personal information, which my trade union has, should remain personal and be given only to the people I choose to give it to. The Bill’s proposals make that information vulnerable.
	It has been suggested that the information could be dealt with by branches and lay reps, but that is ridiculous. They do not have the capacity. Usually, they are in full-time jobs and do their functions as a lay official in their spare time, above and beyond their working day. When will they get the time to fulfil this task? They simply do not have access to the same information as an official employed by a trade union to do that job. I am very concerned about that, because the data are sensitive and are classified as such by the Data Protection Act. They need to be treated as such. The clause lays the information wide open and this is the one area about which I think the Government need to think again.
	I agree with all of our amendments, but I urge the Government to look again at amendments 112 and 117 in particular. I am really concerned that the clause has not been thought through and that it has not been written in a practical way that relates to the real world. If legislation is going to work, it has to do those things, and this Bill simply does not pass that test.

John McDonnell: I want to follow on from the excellent exposé by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) of the rationale for the concerns of the Opposition and others. To be frank, I thought that we had won this argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has said, we had a debate on blacklisting several months ago, in which there was cross-party understanding of the vulnerability that people feel in the work force. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has said, that vulnerability relates not only to blacklisting, but to victimisation.
	I raised the issue in 1997 and in 2003. We got some legislation that was not effective and then I convened the first meeting of the Blacklist Support Group, which brought together in 2008 all those workers with blacklisting cases that they wanted to pursue. One of the breakthroughs for us was the raids undertaken by the Information Commissioner, under the Data Protection Act, that exposed the scale of blacklisting, with nearly 4,000 people on at least one list. People are anxious for us to ensure that any future legislation does not set up a system that could make them vulnerable again.
	It could be argued that some of our amendments are a belt-and-braces approach, but this is about restoring confidence. The tragedy in the past—I do not mean to be hypercritical of any organisation by saying this—was that it was not just employers exchanging blacklist information. We now know that it was also coming from the police and security services and, actually, some renegade trade unionists, who passed information to employers who then went on to compile a blacklist. That is why, if we are to establish a new system that gives the certification officer a wide range of responsibilities and that appoints—in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery)—the bizarrely named
	assurer and inspectors, we need to ensure that there is a belt-and-braces approach so that they are properly tasked with abiding by the duty of confidentiality. That is why our amendments are so critical.
	Amendment 107 states that it is important that the assurers
	“have a duty of confidentiality to the trade union”.
	It is critical that the trade union has confidence that those officers have such a duty. It is also critical, as amendment 108 sets out, that when those individuals are appointed, their qualifications are known and they are qualified to do the job. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck does get the job and the wage from Len McCluskey. I am sure that he is completely qualified to do the job. There needs to be some assurance that the people who are appointed are qualified to do the job. In addition, there must be a process by which assurers can be dismissed if they breach confidentiality. That is also dealt with in the Opposition amendments, which would assure people that their concerns about the use of this information for blacklisting and victimisation are taken seriously in the Bill.
	I share the concerns about line 28 on page 41, which states that the duty of confidentiality involves taking “all reasonable steps”. That is not acceptable because it is not powerful enough. Amendment 118 would replace those words with “all necessary steps”. We must ensure that any action that is taken goes beyond reasonableness; it must be necessary and effective.
	Further down page 41, the circumstances are set out in which a member’s name and address are permitted to be provided. The list includes the member’s consent, but that seems to be overridden by a range of other situations in which the certification officer may provide names and addresses.

Andrew Gwynne: I commend my hon. Friend for the work on blacklisting that he has done in Parliament. Is he as concerned as I am about proposed new section 24ZG(3)(d) to the Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which states:
	“where it is required for the purposes of the discharge of any of the functions of the assurer”?
	That seems to be very wide-ranging.

John McDonnell: I have no idea what that means. It has such a range of interpretation that it gives the assurer the ability to provide information to virtually anyone for any purpose. It will undermine the confidence of workers who have experienced blacklisting or victimisation and workers who are currently at risk if the Bill is passed in this form.
	One of the reasons why there may be a disclosure of information is
	“where it is required for the purposes of the investigation of crime or criminal proceedings.”
	In the real world of industrial relations, many Opposition Members have seen a crime being alleged because of the process of picketing. Because the list includes the investigation of an alleged crime, the certification officer will be able to hand over the names and addresses of pickets who are accused of action that could be construed to be illegal. That will undermine people’s ability to exercise their democratic rights as trade unionists by undertaking picketing or other forms of industrial action.
	I am anxious about the whole clause. It flies in the face of the assurances that have been given in the House that blacklisting and victimisation will be addressed. People have been blacklisted or victimised simply because they are trade unionists or health and safety representatives. On the blacklist that we discovered, names had been misinterpreted and the wrong people had been identified. Some people had been blacklisted simply because they had undertaken political activities unrelated to trade union activities.
	The Opposition amendments simply try to gain the assurance that a duty of confidentiality will be placed on the officers who will implement the new regime. I do not find that to be excessive. It will not introduce burdens on trade unions, the certification officer or the assurer. It will simply clarify their legal duties. One of their legal duties must be to protect the information that they are inspecting or, to use the new verb, “assuring” as a result of this legislation.
	I urge the Government to accept the amendments. I hope they do, but even if they cannot, they can at least take the spirit of what Opposition Members have said and return with their own amendments to ensure that there is a duty of confidentiality on the officers concerned; that the qualifications can be properly examined when the assurer is appointed; that assurers can be dismissed if there is a breakdown of confidentiality; and that there is absolute security for the information the assurer guards and controls on behalf of the trade union.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the debate on clause 37 and the amendments and I shall respond to some of the remarks hon. Members have made. Clause 37 gives credibility to the maintenance of trade union membership registers to members, employers and the wider public.
	As hon. Members know, unions are already required to report on their financial affairs. They need to appoint an auditor, which gives the accounts authority. When a large union submits its membership on its certificate, the Bill provides the same kind of independent assurance that is provided in financial affairs. For the larger unions, that assurance needs to be independent if it is to be credible, which is why trade unions of more than 10,000 members must appoint a qualified independent person to provide the membership audit certificate, which will state whether, in the assurer’s opinion, the union’s systems are satisfactory in relation to compliance with the duties to maintain an accurate register—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Sheffield (Angela Smith) wants to intervene, I am happy for her to do so—[Interruption.] I apologise if I did not get the hon. Lady’s exact constituency name quite right. I should have referred to her as the Member for Barnsley and Penistone or whatever. She had a slightly different constituency in the previous Parliament.
	The clause provides an order-making power for the Secretary of State to define who may act as an assurer. Somebody cannot act as an assurer if the union has grounds to believe they would not act competently, or that their independence might be called into question. For example, union officers or employers may not act as an assurer. In practice, the assurer will need to be somebody who can understand how records are stored, collected and updated, so that they can provide the audit certificate. They might want to know how the union collects new member data and how members are
	reminded to keep their details up to date—the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) described how a union with which she had been involved did that regularly. The assurer might also want to know how unions update the register once changes are notified.
	Unions will need to set out in their rules the process for appointing and removing an assurer. We have provided flexibility for the union, but none the less, certain provisions will apply regardless. An assurer may be removed by resolution, or be automatically re-appointed unless one of various specified conditions are met. However, it will always be up to the union to have the final say—it can appoint or remove an assurer by resolution.

Paul Flynn: Before the hon. Lady gets into the detail, will she answer the question that has been asked again and again in the debate? Why is there a need for assurers? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has said, the measure is a solution looking for a problem. What is the problem?

Jo Swinson: That was discussed at length in the debate on the previous group of amendments and I refer the hon. Gentleman to my remarks in that debate. Clearly, we want to ensure that there is confidence in the names and addresses that trade unions use for the membership lists. There is agreement on both sides of the Committee that it is important that membership lists are accurate and up to date. That is an existing responsibility and duty on unions. The membership audit certificate will provide confidence in the list. It is much more proportionate for smaller unions, for which it is much easier to keep details up to date—smaller unions have fewer than 10,000 members, whereas some of the larger unions have more than 1 million members—to provide an assurance themselves. However, to have the credibility required for the larger unions, we must have that independence, which is where the assurer comes in.

Ian Murray: Regarding the example we heard earlier, would it be helpful for the Minister to tell the Committee categorically whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) could or could not be an assurer?

Jo Swinson: As I recall it, the hon. Member for Wansbeck was talking about whether he would be in a position to do that where he had been elected within a union. I have made it clear that that would not be appropriate for union officers, because they need to be independent of the process. What is clear is that there will be an order published about assurers, which I will come on to shortly, and hopefully that will answer the question. We need to look at the terms of the order as it develops—it may well be that the hon. Gentleman has a promising career ahead of him as an assurer. It will be up to unions themselves to define the assurer’s contract terms, subject to minimum requirements, to ensure that they fit the nature of the organisation and are not disproportionately costly.
	Various Members have raised concerns about data protection, and that an assurer’s access to membership details could risk breaching data protection rules. I
	hope to provide reassurance to Members that that concern is unfounded, but I recognise that it has been expressed. The assurer will be bound by current data protection rules, as well as by the additional confidentiality provisions set out in clause 37. The assurer owes a duty of confidentiality to the trade union, which is built into the appointment. They must not disclose the names and addresses of members, except where the member consents, where it is required for the purposes of their functions under the Act, or for criminal proceedings. They must also take all reasonable steps to ensure that there is no prohibited disclosure by other parties.
	A certification officer, and any inspector appointed by the certification officer, have access to membership data, but that is immediately limited to the performance of their functions in relation to the register and the audit requirements under TULCRA—the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It cannot be used for any other purpose. The duty concerns just the register of members’ names and addresses under section 24 of the 1992 Act. Other information should not generally need to be provided; the minimum amount only will be needed. Information is, of course, sensitive personal data. We absolutely accept that people’s names and addresses—often their home addresses—and whether they are members of a union are sensitive data. That will, therefore, fall under the protection of existing data protection rules. That will apply to any other personal data accessed under the powers in this Bill.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) raised the ability of the certification officer to provide documents and a test of what a good reason would be. The certification officer will be able only to request documents that are relevant and where there is good reason to do so—a consistent test that is used elsewhere under the TULCRA legislation. For example, it is already applied by the certification officer for investigations of financial affairs.
	It is important to note that there is no evidence of a problem with how the certification officer has exercised discretion. Indeed, respondents to the targeted consultation we undertook over the summer said that they did not feel there was necessarily a problem. I do not believe that hon. Members are necessarily making the charge that they would be concerned about how individuals undertake their duties. However, it is important to note that the test is available. If a union believes that the certification officer is overstepping their remit, it can withhold the information, and, ultimately, there is a right of appeal if there is an order made by the certification officer requiring production of the information.

Andrew Gwynne: Earlier, the hon. Lady mentioned that the details would be provided in an order and that they would be subject to the minimum requirements for the post of assurer. Will she explain what those minimum requirements are, so that we can assess how to vote? Also, how will she militate against potential conflicts of interest between the assurer and other clients they might have?

Jo Swinson: I will come on to the issues relating to the assurer. I would like to deal with data protection sensitivity and turn to the issue of blacklisting before I come back to the specifics about the assurer, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh South was asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) about penalties if there is a breach of data protection or confidentiality issues. Various protections are in place. The assurer would have to comply with the Data Protection Act. If they did not do so, they would be in breach of their contracts, so as well as being removed, the union could sue them. However, the assurer would also be a data controller, so the Information Commissioner could take action. The Information Commissioner has significant powers under the Data Protection Act, which include serving an enforcement notice setting out action that the data controller must take and—where required to address a serious contravention of the duty—imposing a fine of up to £500,000. Failing to comply with an enforcement notice by the Information Commissioner is also an offence, so there are significant protections in place.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others raised the important issue of blacklisting. Let me reiterate on the record—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have said this on various occasions in the House—that the blacklisting of trade union members is unacceptable and illegal. Following an investigation, of which the Committee will be aware, that uncovered the Consulting Association’s blacklist, the law was strengthened at the end of the previous Parliament by the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. That was also when the maximum fine for a breach of data protection rules was increased to £500,000.
	The Committee will also be aware that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has been conducting an inquiry into this issue. In July, the Committee contacted the Secretary of State to say that it had new information that blacklisting continues. We have always encouraged anyone with evidence of blacklisting to come forward so that we can investigate. The Scottish Affairs Committee is the first to get in touch formally to say that it possesses new information. We are grateful to the Committee for passing that information to the Department. We have referred it to the Information Commissioner’s Office, as the appropriate body to investigate any breaches of the Data Protection Act. I understand that the office is requesting more information from the Committee, so that it can examine it and investigate. My right hon. Friend and I will of course continue to take a close interest in this matter. If any evidence of blacklisting is found, the perpetrators must feel the full force of the law.
	Let me turn to the amendments in this group. Amendment 107 would make the assurer owe a duty of confidentiality to the union and its members—this deals with the concerns raised about data protection. I hope that the protections I have outlined will reassure hon. Members about compliance with the existing legislation, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in part 3—the convention is to keep legislation concise and not to repeat existing legal requirements. I am happy to reassure the Committee and put it firmly on the record that compliance with the Data Protection Act will be necessary by anyone who handles sensitive data.
	Amendment 108 would require the Secretary of State to set out eligibility criteria for the assurer—this goes to the point about the future career ambitions of the hon. Member for Wansbeck—along with what qualifications, status and experience assurers must have. Our approach
	will be the same as for independent scrutineers of trade union ballots and elections. It is important that the assurer has widespread credibility with unions, their members and the public. The order will say which organisations are eligible or list the criteria that must be met. We imagine that assurers will probably be recognised professionals, such as solicitors, auditors or independent scrutineers. The responses to our targeted consultation over the summer supported that approach. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman falls into any of those categories, but he might be interested to know that we will need to consult on the content of the order, and I give the Committee an assurance that we will do so. There will therefore be an opportunity—this is important—for unions, their members and the public, as well as the hon. Gentleman, to comment.

Katy Clark: The hon. Lady was asked in an earlier intervention how she would deal with potential conflicts of interest. Will she deal with that now?

Jo Swinson: I gave some examples of where there might be a conflict of interest, such as where somebody was already an officer of the union, which would not be appropriate, as they would need to be independent. However, as I have set out, there will be a process in the order for outlining eligibility.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Jo Swinson: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I want to make some progress.
	Amendment 110 would mean that unions do not have to set out in their rules how they will appoint and remove an assurer. Not only is the amendment unnecessary, but it is more prescriptive than what we have set out in the Bill. Our intention is to allow unions more discretion over when they remove or appoint an assurer.
	Amendment 109 would prevent the appointment or reappointment of an assurer when there was a breach of confidentiality or a breach of their statutory duties or terms of appointment, or when there were reasonable circumstances not to reappoint. Of course it is important that the assurer should take their duty of confidentiality seriously, but the amendments are not necessary to achieve that aim. We can trust the unions to do this, and they will be able to pass a resolution to get rid of an assurer for any reason. It will be up to the unions to decide. The relationship between the assurer and the union is rightly one for the union to define. We have added a minimum level of protection in the Bill to ensure that an assurer is not reappointed if they are not qualified, are incapacitated or have decided that they do not wish to be reappointed. In general, however, it is better that the union should be responsible for the terms of the relationship with the assurer. That will allow much more flexibility to deal with the individual circumstances of each union.
	Amendment 111 would expect the assurer to give an opinion as to whether the union had complied with the duty to keep its membership register accurate and up to date. This would replace the current proposal to give an opinion on whether the union’s system for compiling the register was satisfactory for that purpose. What is being proposed in the amendment would be far more
	costly and onerous to the union. In some cases, the assurer might conclude that they needed to carry out a thorough audit of all the content of the register. We believe that a systems check is more proportionate, and that is what we are setting out.
	Amendment 112 has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and others. It would add an additional requirement to the membership audit certificate. This would be to include the assurer’s opinion as to whether the employer had shared “timely and accurate details” with the union. The hon. Lady took the view that bad employers would try to prevent unions from having the right information. As I mentioned earlier, there is already statutory protection to ensure that unions cannot be held accountable for information that they do not possess, or for inaccuracies that are beyond their control. It is also important to note that we will produce guidance for employers, to help them to assist unions to comply. It is important that employers should comply with their requirement to provide information to unions, and we believe that that additional guidance will be helpful in that regard.
	Amendment 166 seeks to assist the assurer by requiring the Secretary of State to produce guidance and define in statute what is “satisfactory” and “not satisfactory”. The amendment is either necessary or desirable. What is satisfactory or not will vary from one union to another, and a one-size-fits-all definition would be onerous for some and ineffective for others. Our approach is to retain flexibility. Assurers will be professionals, and it is reasonable to rely on their professional judgment and ability to apply these phrases appropriately. Ultimately, the membership audit certificate represents only the opinion of the assurer. It is only the certification officer who has the power to make a determination.
	Amendment 116 would mean that the union’s assurer was entitled to require only the union’s data controller to provide the necessary information. This would be instead of being able to approach
	“the union’s officers, or the officers of any of its branches or sections”,
	as set out in the Bill. That could result in the assurer being unable to ask questions of the right people. They should obviously be able to question those who handle sensitive membership data, but they should also be able to question others who understand how those data are kept up to date. In some cases, that might be one and the same individual, but in others it might not be. So the form of words that we have used in the Bill, which is also used throughout the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, is much better.
	Amendment 115 seems to suggest that a union should not be penalised for errors when the correct details are held by the employer. I have already set out why existing legislation renders such an amendment unnecessary. There is already a “reasonably practicable” test, and we will be issuing improved guidance. Amendment 117 would mean that the union could supply information to the assurer to help them to carry out their role only if it did not conflict with the union’s responsibility to comply with data protection requirements. I have already outlined the safeguards relating to data protection. The assurer will have to be able to see the register if they are to carry out their responsibilities effectively, and the amendment could prevent that from happening.
	Amendment 119 also seeks further reassurance on the Data Protection Act, but that is unnecessary because it will already apply. Amendments 118 and 128 propose replacing the words “all reasonable steps” with “all steps necessary”. I must ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh South what steps he can imagine that are necessary yet unreasonable. Is he really suggesting that we want necessary and unreasonable steps to be taken?
	Amendment 120 would change the disclosure requirements, but I have already set out the safeguards, so the amendment is unnecessary.
	I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee on a few points of concern. These measures will not present an unreasonable burden on unions and the safeguards in place against the misuse of data are more than adequate. This clause is necessary to provide independent assurance of the maintenance of large and complex registers. Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill, and I urge the hon. Member for Edinburgh South not to press his amendments.

Ian Murray: Given the time, all I will say in summing up is that the Government cannot win the next general election on the arguments, so they will win it on—
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 3 September).

The Chairman of Ways and Means put forthwith the question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 226, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Chair then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
	Amendment proposed: 112, page40,line19,at end insert—
	‘(c) Whether, in the assurer’s opinion, the trade union has taken all reasonable steps to ensure their membership register is up to date taking into account—
	(i) that the union should not be held responsible for inaccuracies in cases where, in the assurer’s opinion, an employer is not sharing timely and accurate details, and
	(ii) any other aspects that, in the assurer’s opinion, have been out of the control of the trade union in the maintenance of the membership register.’.—(Ian Murray.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 223, Noes 284.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 38 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The occupant of the Chair left the Chair.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill, as amended, reported.
	Bill to be considered tomorrow.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In light of the fact that so many issues could not be debated in Committee, have you had any notice from the Government that they intend to give House more time on Report so that those issues may be debated properly?

Lindsay Hoyle: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have had absolutely no notice of that. However, as he is well aware, it is up to the Government to make the timetable.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in Committee

Clause 8
	 — 
	Identifying the “owner” of a builder’s skip

Amendment proposed (10 July): 10.—(Mr Chope.)
	Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind the House that with this we are considering amendments 11 to 19.
	When the debate was in train on 10 July, I believe that Mr Chope was about to sum up—within minutes—and end his speech on the group of amendments.

Christopher Chope: Your recollection is impeccable, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although more than two months have elapsed since we last debated the amendments, I do not think that it is necessary for me to remind the House of the issues at stake, given that there are further important matters to discuss.
	During the course of the debate, there was considerable discussion about on which of the commendable amendments in the group we should seek to test the opinion of the House. Having listened to the helpful advice of my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), the balance of opinion is that the best choice would be amendment 14, which would provide that people could not be prosecuted for having unlit skips if they had taken reasonable steps to ensure that they were lit. In other words, the amendment would mean that there would have to be a lack of responsibility before a criminal act could be committed. There was acceptance across the House that such an amendment would be reasonable, so while I shall not press amendment 10 to a Division, I will seek the opinion of the House on amendment 14.
	Earlier in the debate, we heard the good news that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, will accept amendment 11, which should interest those who think that such occasions are rather a pointless exercise. It is clear that the promoters of this Bill are much more willing to accept amendments than the promoter of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill—the Government. The Government should learn a lesson from how we conduct private business, during which if it is thought that the arguments being made about amendments are reasonable, those amendments are accepted without anyone feeling that they are losing face. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Bill’s promoters on being broad-minded enough to accept not only amendment 11, but amendment 30, which we shall reach in due course. Without further ado, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment made: 11.—(Mr Chope.)

Clause 9
	 — 
	Builders’ skips: penalty charge provisions

Amendment proposed: 14—(Mr Chope.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 8, Noes 141.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 15
	 — 
	Gated Roads

Amendment proposed: 20—(Mr Chope.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 8, Noes 91.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 16
	 — 
	Charging points for electric vehicles

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 21.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to consider amendments 22 to 40.

Christopher Chope: The amendment relates to part 5 of the Bill, which deals with charging points for electric vehicles. Many moons ago, perhaps even more than two years ago, I was told that the reason why the Government were so keen to ensure that the Bill got on the statute book was its provisions on charging points for electric vehicles. The fact that the Bill has been on a very slow curve since then is indicative of the many practical problems that are being experienced by people who want to promote electric vehicles and a green economy. That is why the issue of charging points has not been as significant as the Government at one stage thought it would be.
	I declare my enthusiasm for the idea that there should be electric vehicles. Obviously, if one has an electric vehicle, one needs to have somewhere to charge it. On the whole, batteries that are long-lasting are heavy and large, so it is much easier if one has a smaller, more efficient unit that can be charged at a charging point.
	I was therefore disappointed to see that part 5, which gives powers to London local authorities to
	“provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles”,
	does not require those local authorities to provide and operate such charging apparatus. What a missed opportunity, one might say. I am not suggesting that local authorities should provide and operate charging
	apparatus in any place. What I am suggesting in amendments 21 and 22 is that the clause should state that London local authorities “shall”, rather than “may”,
	“provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles”
	in every
	“public off-street car park under the management and control of the authority”.
	We know that London local authorities make an enormous amount of money from car parking charges, both for on-street and off-street parking. We also know that off-street car parking charges often discourage shoppers from going to local shopping centres. However, if local authorities believe they can charge a lot for the use of off-street car parks, surely, in a society in which we support the principle of having and promoting the use of electric vehicles, they should be required to provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered vehicles rather than just have the opportunity to do so if they wish to take it up.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend knows I am with him on most of his activities, but does he acknowledge that there is a certain smell of the nanny state in his amendments? Is he suggesting—this seems totally out of character for him—that drivers of non-electric vehicles should in effect subsidise drivers of electric vehicles through car parking charges?

Christopher Chope: Far from it—I am with my hon. Friend on subsidies. I am suggesting that the cost of charging an electrically powered motor vehicle should be self-financing. Obviously, when someone goes into a public off-street car park and charges their vehicle, they can expect to pay for the parking, the service and the electricity. I am not suggesting that other car park users cross-subsidise those who have chosen to have electric vehicles. Electric vehicle users are already cross-subsidised to an extent because of their different treatment under the vehicle excise duty regime.

Philip Davies: I am relieved that my hon. Friend has not gone completely nanny state in his approach. However, his proposal would depend on sufficient demand for electric charging points in such locations. If there was insufficient demand, the drivers of non-electric cars would, in effect, be subsidising the very few drivers of electric cars at the charging points.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is getting into an interesting argument on which we could have an academic discourse. Obviously, to encourage an embryonic service, we might have to provide it and hope that people start using it. Many years ago, when I was the Minister with responsibility for roads, I was involved in promoting the use of lead-free fuel. It seems amazing, Mr Deputy Speaker that, within our living memory, we moved from full-leaded fuel to the unleaded version. To begin with, relatively few vehicles went on unleaded petrol. If a pioneer bought a vehicle that used unleaded fuel and there was nowhere to fill it up, it would have been a deterrent to people taking up unleaded vehicles. In the same way, if we want to increase the uptake of electric vehicles, we need to increase the number of places where people who own them can recharge them, so that they do not just leave them with an empty battery in the middle of the highway.

Philip Davies: I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I cannot believe that, when he introduced unleaded fuel, he insisted that every local authority had an unleaded fuel pump outside every available car park. I presume he left it to the private sector to run the show. Why does he believe that we need the state to be involved so heavily in providing charging points?

Christopher Chope: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I recognise that the unleaded debate was such a long time in the past that Mr Davies may struggle to remember it, but Mr Chope definitely wants to talk about electric points, and not to get bogged down in leaded or unleaded fuel. I know he dealt with that as a Minister and that he wants to deal only with electric points now—he does not want to upset the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. As so often, you are spot on in reading the language not necessarily expressed between my hon. Friend and myself.
	In my hon. Friend’s most recent intervention, he asked why local authorities are being given this responsibility. The Bill does not leave it to the private sector to provide charging points for electric vehicles; it gives powers to London local authorities to provide and operate charging apparatus. In my submission, that is acceptable only if there is a requirement for them to provide that. What is the point of giving them a power without any certainty about whether they will exercise it? My hon. Friend paints a scenario in which the public sector can be kept out of this completely. Indeed, I could support that where there are no public sector London local authority-owned car parks. However, if London local authorities wish to take powers to establish charging points for electric vehicles, my point, and the point of these two amendments, is that they should provide them in all of their car parks.

Philip Davies: I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will not mention unleaded fuel again. Coming on to the nitty gritty on electric charging points, as the Bill is currently written it may well still be that the local authority will not get involved and that it will be left to the private sector—there is no requirement. It is only if my hon. Friend’s amendment is accepted that local authorities will be forced to do this, rather than the private sector.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is making an argument against the whole of part 5. He is basically saying that if we are to have charging points for electric vehicles, it should be left to the market, and that the private sector will come into the market and fill any gaps. I find that to be a persuasive argument.
	My counter-argument relates to the provisions in part 5. If London local authorities are to be given powers to set up charging points we should, at the same time, say that they shall set up charging points. Otherwise, we could have a situation where they pick and choose where they think it will be most advantageous for them to set up the charging points, and effectively undermine the potential private sector involvement to which my hon. Friend refers. One consequence of part 5 may well be that in London the private sector will be inhibited
	from coming forward to provide and operate charging apparatus, because local authorities will be competing unfairly by providing that apparatus in their best positioned off-street public car parks, rather than in all their car parks. That is the point I am trying to make: it should, effectively, be compulsory.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Bill has been progressing through this place for such a long time that the legislative framework against which it was originally drafted has changed substantially? Part 5 may not be necessary, because the Localism Act 2011 allows local authorities to carry out this work.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps we will hear from the Minister in due course what he thinks is the answer to that issue. The regime being established under part 5 would put London local authorities in a privileged position compared with ordinary private sector operators. Philosophically, my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley and I would say that that was wrong. The counterweight is that if the legislation puts local authorities in a privileged position, additional responsibilities should be placed on them in the public interest—namely, to ensure that charging points are available not just in occasional car parks, but in every public off-street car park run by the council.

David Nuttall: If that was the case, surely it would increase the risk of a burden being placed on the taxpayer.

Christopher Chope: I accept that, which is why I am disappointed that relatively few spokespersons for London local authority taxpayers are present in the Chamber. There is a lot in this Bill which could ultimately result in additional costs for London local authority taxpayers, mainly through council tax. As somebody who represents a constituency outside London, all I can do is share my hon. Friend’s concern about that. Indeed, we are doing a public service in raising the issue, although it does not seem to have yet reached the ears of people across London, who are normally very concerned about whether they are getting value for money for their council tax.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend says that this is a matter only for London, but it is not, because if the strategy goes hopelessly wrong, London local authorities or the Mayor of London might at some point look to the Government to bail them out. That is why we all need to be aware of this issue on behalf of taxpayers in our constituencies.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I suppose the counter-argument is that it is important that a motorist setting out for London from Shipley in an electric car should be able to find somewhere to charge up their car with electricity.

David Nuttall: In view of the point my hon. Friend has just made, is he not as surprised as I am that the Government have not introduced a Bill to provide for the erection of charging points nationally, rather than just in London?

Christopher Chope: That is a good point. I hope we will hear from the Minister in due course, because it is no exaggeration to say that there is nobody in the House with a better or more consistent record of wanting to promote electric vehicles than him.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my advice and help. We are discussing the London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill, and I do not want to get into a national debate. As much as Mr Nuttall is trying to tempt you, Mr Chope—he is very good at tempting Members away—I know that you do not want to be distracted from the amendments before us.

Christopher Chope: Thank you for that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously it means that when the Minister responds, he should address his remarks to the issue of charging points for electric vehicles in London, without straying into whether there should be charging points for electric vehicles beyond London. I am glad that you have effectively given him that warning in advance of him making his contribution, and I am sorry if I was going to lead him down the wrong path.

Philip Davies: The Government have set out their position in “Driving the Future Today”, as published by the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, which has been given money to provide such points. My concern is that if my hon. Friend’s amendments are accepted, that could lead to the national budget for this issue being used up.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I know that you wanted to make a short intervention, Mr Davies, and I know that you may wish to speak later, in which case I would not want you to use your speech up now, but instead to recognise that we need to continue with the amendments before us, rather than causing further distractions.

Christopher Chope: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Amendment 23 would introduce the words “on a discretionary basis” into clause 16, amending the provision that:
	“A London authority may grant a person permission to provide or operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles…on any highway for which they are responsible as highway authority.”
	That discretion would be necessary as a consequence of amendments 21 and 22 being accepted. Amendments 24 and 25 propose leaving out references to authorised persons, which would result in the London authorities having to exercise the responsibility themselves, rather than through authorised people.

Philip Davies: Given the discussion that we have already had about the desirability of the private sector being involved, would not these amendments strike out the opportunity for such involvement by preventing a London authority from allowing the provisions to be operated on its behalf?

Christopher Chope: Maybe my hon. Friend is right, but my submission is that if the London authority is going to provide charging points, it should do so itself, on its
	own land. The Bill does not deal with charging points on private land. It deals only with charging points in public off-street car parks that are in the control of the authority, and on any highway for which it is responsible as the highway authority. If someone is going to set up a charging point on a highway, the highway authority should be responsible for it, rather than the person who is setting it up. If anyone wants to set up private off-street charging points for electric vehicles, I would encourage them so to do. They would not need the permission of the local authority to do that. Indeed, they might be able to access the subsidies that were mentioned earlier. Clause 16 allows a London authority to give an “authorised person” permission to set up a charging point on the highway, for which that authority would not be directly responsible.

Philip Davies: Surely any person granted such permission would be acting on behalf of the local authority, which could revoke that permission any time it saw fit. My hon. Friend seems to be going down the road of enforced nationalisation.

Christopher Chope: Well, if that is not sufficient to intimidate me into withdrawing my amendment, I do not know what is! I would certainly not wish to go down any route that could be interpreted, even mistakenly, as enforced nationalisation. I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point. I look forward to hearing his speech, and I shall perhaps come back to that point when I have the privilege of winding up this short debate.
	Amendments 26 and 27 propose leaving out subsections 6 and 7 of clause 16. The effect would be to deal with the issue of liability. One of the privileges that the Bill gives to London local authorities is to exempt them from the common law relating to nuisance on the highway or in public off-street car parks.
	It says in subsection 7(b),
	“in relation to permissions granted under subsection (2)”,
	that nothing
	“is to be taken as imposing on a London authority by whom a permission has been granted any liability for injury, damage or loss resulting from the presence on a highway or public off-street car park of the charging apparatus to which the permission relates”.
	What is effectively happening under this provision is that the London local authorities are seeking to say, “Not me, Guv”. If anything goes wrong with the charging apparatus and it results in an accident or in somebody being injured, which would normally lead to a claim for damages against the local authority, that authority is going to be exempt from the consequent liability. I think that puts the local authorities in a privileged position, enabling them to have an unfair competitive advantage compared with other people who are involved in providing charging points for electric vehicles.
	Amendment 27 emphasises the same point in respect of paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (7). Paragraph (c) states that nothing in the section
	“is to be taken as imposing on a London authority any liability for injury, damage or loss resulting from the presence on a highway or public off-street car park of a connecting cable”.
	If somebody puts a connecting cable across the highway or a public off-street car park, but it is not constructed in such a way as not to be an obstruction, resulting in somebody tripping over it and injuring themselves, one
	would expect that local authority to be liable for the consequences of that action. According to the drafting, however, the London local authority is seeking to absolve itself from liability for people who fall over connecting cables, on the highway or in public off-street car parks, which connect to charging points for electric vehicles. The subsequent paragraph specifies that a London local authority has “the right” to “indemnify” itself
	“against any claim in respect of injury, damage or loss arising out of the grant of a permission granted under subsection (2).”
	It seems to me that these provisions give to the London local authorities far too many privileges above the law. If they are keen to set up these charging points for electric vehicles, they should, in my submission, also accept the responsibility that goes with that, which is that they should be constructed in a responsible way and should not cause danger to members of the public which can result in injury, damage or loss.
	Amendment 28 is designed to leave out subsection (8), which reads:
	“For the purposes of determining, in any proceedings in a court of civil jurisdiction, who is liable for injury, damage or loss resulting from the presence on a highway or public off-street car park of a connecting cable at or near charging apparatus…it shall be presumed that the person in charge of the relevant vehicle at the relevant time had responsibility for and control of the cable.”
	Why should that presumption be made? Why should it not be a matter of who has responsibility for and control of the cable? That should be the test, rather than making a presumption that the person in charge of the relevant vehicle has the responsibility for and control of the cable. It seems to me that this is another way of introducing a statutory exception that benefits local authorities and overrides the common law of the land.

Philip Davies: I am glad to observe that my hon. Friend is back on track with the amendments, because they are faultless. Does he not think it bizarre that a driver who has an accident caused by a cable while he is driving along should be treated as if he were in control of that cable, although he may not have been aware of its existence before the accident?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That brings us back to the question of whom we are trying to encourage to use electric vehicles, and hence to use electric vehicle charging points. If using a charging point can make someone liable at law for events for which that person would not have been responsible but for the provisions of this statute, that in itself will deter people from using electric vehicles. I know of no legislation that provides for someone who fills up his tank at a petrol station to be automatically liable, as the person in charge of the vehicle, irrespective of whether he or she is at fault. I assume that normally, whether the petrol station was owned by a private sector company or by a local authority, its owner would, could or should be responsible.
	Important issues of principle underlie these provisions. The danger, as always, is that if they are passed without adverse comment, it will be possible for them to be replicated in other Bills. We have observed that iterative process for many years. Throughout the country, we have encountered more and more—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us not worry about other Bills. Let us deal with the Bill before us, and, in particular, with the amendments.

Christopher Chope: I shall deal next with amendment 29, Mr Deputy Speaker. It proposes the removal of clause 16(9), which states that in subsection 8,
	“’the relevant vehicle’ means the vehicle in respect of which the connecting cable was about to be, was being or had been used for charging”,
	and that
	“’ªthe relevant time’ means the time when the liability arose.”
	That seems to me merely to compound the proposals in subsection 8.
	We then arrive at what could be described as a bright dawn. Amendment 30 makes the following proposal:
	“Clause 16, page 13, line 15 after ‘cable’, insert
	‘or wire which is not provided by the authority’.”
	I tabled that amendment because I considered it to be an essential safeguard, spelling out the status of the charging apparatus to which we have been referring, which had not been provided by the authority.

Bob Blackman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Christopher Chope: May I anticipate my hon. Friend’s intervention by saying that I am delighted by the broad-minded way in which he has viewed some, if not all, of the amendments? I understand that he is now about to give the House a verdict on the merits, or demerits, of amendment 30.

Bob Blackman: Let me say on behalf of the promoters, in order to save time, that they are happy to accept amendment 30. I trust that we shall now be able to move on to the rest of the amendments that my hon. Friend wishes to press.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that clear, and I am happy to move on.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) may have accepted this amendment, but I am not sure that I shall accept it as easily. May I therefore suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) does not move on quite so quickly, and instead outlines the reasons why this is necessary, because I do not see why?

Christopher Chope: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think we have got the reasons, and I know Mr Chope wants to get on. I have not even had a chance to call other speakers yet. I would be delighted to hear the views of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I will therefore be grateful if you move on through the amendments as you were doing, Mr Chope.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will be able to make his own speech in due course, and when our friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), replies on behalf of the promoters, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley can intervene on him to ask why he thinks this amendment is so good. That might be the better way of proceeding, because the situation from my point of view is that I thought my amendment was a good idea and now it has been accepted by the promoters, which I think that is a doubly good idea.
	Amendment 31 addresses the definition of connecting cable. It is defined in clause 16 as
	“any cable or wire, whether provided by the authority or otherwise, used to connect the charging apparatus to a vehicle and that is not permanently attached to the charging apparatus.”
	As a consequence of the other amendments, I do not think the definition is sufficient.

Philip Davies: If my hon. Friend’s earlier amendments ensure all of this has to be done by the London local authority alone, am I right in thinking there will not be any wires, connecting cables or anything else provided by people other than the local authority?

Christopher Chope: That is absolutely right, but in drafting these amendments I had to anticipate the possibility that my earlier amendments would not be accepted by the promoters or the House—after all, it seems that there is even some difficulty in getting my hon. Friend to accept them. I therefore thought, to employ a lawyer’s phrase, that it was probably sensible to plead in the alternative, or move an amendment in the alternative. I agree that it would not be sensible to accept all the amendments en bloc because some of them are in the alternative. That would have to be sorted out if a lot of these amendments were carried or were accepted by the promoters.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, you have arrived in the Chair just in time for us to get on to clause 17. It deals with notices to be given before the exercise of powers under section 16. I have tabled some amendments to this clause. Amendment 32 would leave out subsection (2), because that is consistent with the argument I was putting forward earlier that it would not be right to allow authorised persons to be involved in this process. This is therefore a consequential amendment, consequent upon being able to remove references to authorised persons from the Bill.

Philip Davies: I follow the logic of that, but it does not necessarily follow. It might be thought that the authorised person does not need first to publish a notice under this section. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to whether the publishing of the notice was relevant in his deliberations?

Christopher Chope: Clause 17(1) states that
	“a London authority shall not exercise any power…unless they have first published a notice under this section.”
	[Interruption.] Okay, well that is what clause 17(1) says. Clause 17(2) says “unless the authorised person”—[Interruption.] Yes, but I am seeking to remove authorised persons from this entirely, whether or not they had published notices. That is why this is a consequential amendment, consequent upon the removal of any references to authorised persons. That is because they would not be able to operate this equipment, whether or not they had published any notices under clause 17. That is made clear by subsection (3), which states:
	“A London authority or an authorised person, as the case may be, shall publish a notice”.
	My amendment 33 seeks to remove the power for an authorised person to publish such a notice. Amendments 34, 35 and 36 make similar amendments, and it is not necessary to repeat the argument in support of them.
	I shall now deal with the amendments relating to clause 18, which is entitled:
	“Duties to consult or obtain consent of other authorities”.
	It is invidious to try to evaluate the significance of one’s amendments, but amendment 37 is significant. Clause 18(1) states:
	“A London authority shall not exercise any power conferred by section 16(1) unless they have consulted any authority other than themselves who are a local planning authority, as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the area in which they propose to exercise the power.”
	Consulting a planning authority is a very different proposition from obtaining its permission, which is why amendment 37 would replace “consulted” with “obtained the consent of”.
	When people are faced with the possibility of having an electric charging point provided by a local authority or a London authority on the highway outside their house, they need to be protected from it being sited in the wrong place or being a health hazard. The local residents look to the local planning authority, in the first place, to try to ensure that those safeguards are available, through the process of needing to obtain planning consent. That involves publishing a notice, giving notice of what is proposed and obtaining the consent of the authority. The Bill states that that would not need to be done and someone could put their charging point on the highway without having to get the permission of the local planning authority.

Philip Davies: I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend is saying; it would seem absurd that someone could consult the authority and have it reject the suggestion, yet they would still plough on regardless. Does he understand that this amendment, which I support, highlights the folly of his amendment 21, which sought to force London local authorities to provide these places everywhere? He is making a good point, but it flies in the face of his earlier amendment.

Christopher Chope: Giving my hon. Friend the benefit of the doubt, my response to his intervention is that that is not necessarily so. This provision presupposes that the London authority, which might be Transport for London, would be providing the charging points and doing so against the wishes of the local planning authority in whose area it was going to put those charging points. That is what I am trying to get at: it is possible that there will be two different authorities. The London authority exercising its power under clause 16(1) is not necessarily the same as the local planning authority as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	Amendment 38 will leave out subsection (2), which talks about an “authorised person”. The same issue arises about consultation and, as I have already said, I do not think that the powers in the Bill should be extended to authorised people. The same point arises from amendment 39, which will leave out subsection (3).
	Last but not least comes amendment 40. Clause 19 creates a new offence of unlawful use of a charging point—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley laughs, and I think that many people coming to the issue for the first time would laugh as well. The clause provides for a new offence—have we not enough offences on the statute book already—and states:
	“A person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale if he uses charging apparatus in contravention of a sign displayed on the apparatus which indicates that…the apparatus is not to be used for any purpose other than charging a vehicle; and…it is an offence to so use the apparatus…A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if…he had the permission of the person who operated the charging apparatus at the time to use the charging apparatus for the purpose in question”—
	although it was a non-authorised purpose—
	“he had reasonable cause to believe he had such permission; or…at the time there was on the charging apparatus an indication given by the person who operated the charging apparatus that it could be used for the purpose for which it was used.”
	Effectively, the clause creates a new offence of stealing electricity.

Bob Blackman: indicated assent.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend, who is the sponsor of the Bill, is nodding. That would be fine if there was not already provision in law to deal with the stealing of electricity, and that is why the provision is completely redundant.
	We are creating a separate regime of stealing electricity from a charging point for charging electric vehicles rather than relying on the general statute law on electricity theft. I do not know whether the House is familiar with this, but electricity theft is a big issue. At the beginning of July the energy regulator, Ofgem, said that it wanted more to be done to combat electricity theft. I know that this is not the subject of the Bill, but a third of electricity theft in this country is to power cannabis farms. Nothing is being done about that—it seems to be being ignored—but meanwhile we are trying to bring in draconian measures to deal with people who, in a fit of over-enthusiasm, might abstract some electricity from a charging point.
	Surely we should keep the law simple: whether the electricity is from a charging point, from a company or from someone’s own meter through changing the wires or using a device, we should rely on the same law—that is, the Theft Act 1968. The Theft Act provides that it is an offence to steal electricity and there are guidelines about the reasonable penalty to be imposed on people who steal electricity. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East why the promoters of the Bill think that existing laws on electricity theft are inadequate to deal with electricity that is taken from a charging point. Some 25,000 people—quite a lot of people—steal electricity each year, and such theft costs each electricity customer the equivalent of £7 a year.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend raises an important point, but the proposal addresses someone who might be not stealing electricity, but using it unlawfully. In such circumstances, they would have paid for it.

Christopher Chope: I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s speech on the amendments because I am not sure that there is a distinction between using electricity in an unintended way and stealing it.

Andrew Turner: I am not suggesting that the person has not paid for the electricity. He could have paid for it, but acted unlawfully under the clause.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend might well be on to a good point, but we will find out when we hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East on behalf of the Bill’s promoters.
	Section 13 of the Theft Act 1968 makes abstracting electricity an offence. It is triable in either the magistrates court or the Crown court, and there are Sentencing Council guidelines on the appropriate punishment. Case law suggests that, for a person who installs a device that causes the electricity meter in their home to give a false reading, a sentence of one month’s immediate imprisonment might be appropriate. I tabled amendment 40 because I was worried that the clause would be another example of putting a further small offence on the statute book and complicating the criminal law, instead of relying on basic law, which is that someone who steals electricity—who takes it dishonestly and without authority—is committing an offence under section 13 of the 1968 Act.

Philip Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend, but is not clause 19 also deficient by focusing in subsection (2) on the fact that someone would be not guilty if
	“he had the permission of the person who operated the charging apparatus”?
	Surely we should be focusing on the person who was paying for the charging apparatus, who might not be the same person as the operator.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am grateful to him for citing another reason why the clause is defective because he is making an additional argument in support of amendment 40, given that it would remove clause 19 completely.
	I anticipate that my hon. Friend will make a speech, so I shall throw out the invitation that I made in connection with the previous group of amendments. It would not be reasonable to press more than one of the amendments in this group to a Division, so it is important that we listen to hon. Members’ arguments so that we can determine which amendment they think should be put before the House. I shall be interested to hear in due course the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and anybody else, including perhaps the sponsor of the Bill. When he responds to my remarks in relation to the amendments, we will be able to judge which one he thinks is the strongest and the one in respect of which he has the greatest difficulty in putting forward a cogent response.
	The issue of charging points for electric vehicles is one that we need to take seriously. The provisions of the Bill could be a precedent which is established across the country. It has taken a long time for the Bill to reach this stage. Bearing in mind that it is Government policy to facilitate the production and use of electric vehicles and to try to make it practical for people who have such vehicles to travel around not just the conurbation but the country, I hope we will hear from the Government on the subject and also from the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who I welcome to the debate to speak on behalf of the Opposition. Her predecessor, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), attended the previous debate in his capacity as a Front-Bench spokesman. I was very sorry that he chose to resign his position because he had been a great servant of the House and had contributed well
	to debates such as this. All I can say to the hon. Lady in anticipating her contribution to the debate is that she has a hard act to follow, but I am sure she will be up to the task.
	These issues are important and are worthy of the scrutiny of the House. In due course, if we get the right charging regime for electric vehicles, it may well be that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, start using an electric vehicle in London if you do not already do so, as might I. If we do not have unfair subsidies and an unfair regime for local authorities, organisations such as this Parliament of ours may be able to set up charging points for electric vehicles. Who knows, this could be a very significant debate for the future of green energy in our country.
	I hope that after we have heard the debate we will be able to decide whether amendment 21 or some other amendment is the one on which we wish to divide.

Philip Davies: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I was a little worried when he began. I thought he had been got at by the Whips Office and had been turned into a more left-wing version, but as he got through his speech I realised that the authentic voice of Christchurch was once again being heard.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend, who does such a great service on private Bills, which the promoters understandably would like to be nodded through in the minimum time. I echo his praise for our hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is not somebody who wants to see legislation nodded through, but engages in the debate and the process. We should commend him for that. Without my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, some rather nasty parts of private Bills would go through without anybody raising an eyebrow. Even if his amendments do not always find favour, it is essential that they are debated and considered, and that people can see their merits or otherwise. I hope that plays its part in making the legislation that goes through this House better than it would otherwise be. So I am grateful to him for the amendments that he tabled.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch set me a challenge to give him some guidance as to which amendment I thought was the one that he should press, so I shall try to give—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that preamble to the remarks that he is now going to make on the Bill. I just remind him and his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that it is up to the Chair to decide where the votes are, but obviously the hon. Member for Christchurch will need to consider which amendments he wishes to move or, with leave, withdraw. Mr Davies, if you could come to the amendments, rather than the general skills, excellent though they are, of the hon. Member for Christchurch in considering private Bills, I would be grateful.

Philip Davies: I, too, am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are of course right, so without further ado I will get straight down to the amendments.
	Amendment 21 is one that I cannot possibly support, but I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. I am not entirely sure—perhaps the promoter of the Bill
	can let us know—but I presume that the Bill, and clause 16 in particular, was introduced to enable the implementation of “An Electric Vehicle Delivery Plan for London”, a document issued by the Mayor in May 2009. I presume that that document was the genesis of the legislation. Clause 16 currently states:
	“A London authority may provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles”.
	The amendment would make that:
	“A London authority shall provide”.
	It seems to me that the merits of the amendment, as far as the Bill is concerned, can be determined by asking whether or not the clause would fulfil the pledge and the ideas behind the Mayor’s document.
	The Mayor’s document sets some ambitious targets for the use of electric vehicles. It states that the delivery plan will
	“Work with the boroughs and other partners to deliver 25,000 charge points across London by 2015… including a network of fast charge sites—500 on-street, 2,000 in off-street public car parks, station car parks”.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East knows much more than I do about the number of these things in London and their geography, so perhaps he can say whether the Bill, as currently drafted, with the word “may”, would deliver the numbers set out in the document, or whether it needs the harsher wording, with “shall”, to hit those targets, because the document seems to be the genesis of the Bill. Having said that, whether we agree with the Mayor’s ambitions is a slightly different matter.
	My view, for what it is worth, is that we should not compel London local authorities to provide and operate charging apparatus in every public off-street car park, as amendments 21 and 22 propose. There might be no demand in certain parts of some London boroughs. We might not really want local authorities doing it themselves anyway. Perhaps we would like other people involved in provision, not least to get some competition going. Competition, of course, is the best way to drive down prices. I seems to me that the monopoly my hon. Friend envisages, unusually, would not be in the best interests of the consumer or the taxpayer, who might end up paying unnecessarily to have charging apparatus installed in places where it is not needed and never will be. Putting such apparatus in every public off-street car park under the control of the local authority seems extremely demanding. It is something that I cannot support. I urge my hon. Friend not to press amendments 21 and 22, and on that basis, I could not support amendment 23, as it is consequential to amendments 21 and 22.
	Unusually, my hon. Friend and I have got off on a bad footing, and the situation is not particularly helped by amendment 24; we may have started off badly with amendments 21, 22 and 23, but we appear to be going downhill rapidly with amendment 24. It would strike out subsection (2), which allows a London authority to
	“grant a person permission to provide or operate charging apparatus”—
	in effect, on its behalf. It seems that, strangely, my hon. Friend wants to prevent the local authority from introducing any private enterprise, in effect ensuring that all such things are state owned and run. That is an extraordinary state of affairs to be asked to support.

Christopher Chope: I am not suggesting what my hon. Friend has just said. I would support him in an aspiration that the number of public off-street car parks under the management and control of local authorities should be significantly reduced by means of being sold by those authorities. My amendment is saying that if car parks are managed and controlled by the local authority, that authority shall set up charging points.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend puts a slightly different complexion on matters, if I understand him correctly; if I have not, he must pull me up. If he is suggesting that the onerous requirement on local authority car parks is to encourage authorities to sell off the car parks so that they do not have to fulfil that requirement, I do at last see what he is driving at. I start to see the merits of his plan. I was not aware of what his real agenda was; it is a “privatisation of car parks” amendment, rather than one about the privatisation of charging apparatus. I will have to rethink my views.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend not agree that in view of the fact that subsection (2) is merely a permissive power—it says “may grant” rather than “will grant”—no harm will come from its being left in the Bill?

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I am on the opposite side of an argument from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I wonder whether I am on the wrong side of the argument. Having the robust support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) will reinforce my confidence that I am on the right side.
	The desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to use the amendment to force the privatisation of car parks may have merit. If he were back in charge of a local authority, he might decide that that was the best way to go. I am not convinced that other local authorities would take that view, so the provision would end up being an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. The amendment is therefore not worthy of support, despite his best efforts to rescue support for what might otherwise be thought of as a poor amendment.
	I turn back to amendment 24. In effect, preventing local authorities from allowing the private sector to run charging apparatuses on their behalf would be a retrograde step. If we are to embark on this project, the merits of the amendments are not necessarily relevant. We have to presume that we are going down this route. If we are, I would like the private sector to be involved; it would have an awful lot to offer and could probably show local authorities how to operate the points better, more efficiently and more cheaply. To prevent the private sector from being involved, as my hon. Friend envisages with amendment 24, is not sensible. I cannot support the amendment.
	Amendment 25 is a consequential amendment to amendment 24 that also reinforces it, so if I cannot support amendment 24 I certainly cannot support amendment 25. On that basis—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—I do not think I can support amendment 26 either. I think that for the first time in my short time in the House I have found that I cannot support the first six amendments tabled by my hon. Friend. I hope that that will never be repeated in future.
	On amendment 27, my hon. Friend is back on normal form again, because he is absolutely right about subsection (7). I am not a legal expert, as he is, but it seems to me that in the normal way of things people are responsible for their equipment. The subsection implies that everybody in the whole country, apart from London local authorities, is responsible for any accidents, damage or incidents that happen as a result of their equipment. I am sure that the Government’s view and Parliament’s view is that people should be responsible for their own stuff. It is utterly unacceptable to say that we are going to exempt London local authorities willy-nilly from the normal course of the law. Why on earth we should think that the state should be exempt from all the normal things that apply to everybody else is beyond me. I hope that the promoter of the Bill will reflect on this, because it drives a coach and horses through what we would expect in this country. I certainly encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to pursue amendment 27.
	On amendment 28, my hon. Friend is again on to a very good point. In seeking to strike out subsection (8), he focuses on the part where it says that
	“it shall be presumed that the person in charge of the relevant vehicle at the relevant time had responsibility for and control of the cable.”
	The person in charge at the time may well have control of the cable—it is probably self-evident that if they are using it they have control of it—but to say that they have responsibility for that piece of equipment is a step too far. As my hon. Friend said, we would not expect somebody filling up at a petrol station to take full responsibility for the pumps they were filling up from. I cannot believe that anybody in this House would think that. If people should not take full responsibility for the pumps when they are filling up their car with petrol, why on earth should they take responsibility for the cables when they are charging their car? The same rules should apply. It might be a different form of fuel, but the same principles should apply across the board. Leaving aside control of the cable, it is unacceptable to impose responsibility for it. For that reason alone, I support my hon. Friend in wanting to strike out subsection (8). Of course, if it did not include the words “responsibility for”, I might take a different view, but as it stands it is unacceptable. Subsection (9) relates to the previous subsection, so we do not need to waste much time on that.
	I was puzzled by the Bill’s sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, saying that he was willing to accept amendment 30, because it seems to fly in the face of what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was trying to achieve with his previous amendments. I understand now, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is throwing in the towel—I certainly hope he is—with regard to amendments 21, 22 and 23. Amendment 30 seems to pre-empt that throwing in of the towel, because it suggests a much more sensible state of affairs whereby my hon. Friend accepts that the private sector could be involved and that the wires it provides should also be covered. For that reason, amendment 30 is sensible and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East accepts it.
	We do not need to waste time on amendment 31. Amendment 32 takes us back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the
	authorised person. As I said earlier, I am for having authorised people other than the local authority, so for that reason amendments 32, 33 and 34 should be discarded.

Bob Blackman: And amendments 35 and 36.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend, the sponsor of the Bill, is getting ahead of me. He is clearly a much faster reader than I am. He is ahead of the game and is absolutely right that amendments 35 and 36 are also relevant.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is on to a good thing with amendment 37. It seems ridiculous that the only duty in clause 18(1) is to consult. The title of the clause is: “Duties to consult or obtain consent”. Somebody taking a fleeting look at the Bill would think that obtaining consent was an important part of it, but my hon. Friend is right that subsection (1) mentions only consultation, which is not good enough. Consent must be obtained; otherwise it is a potential affront to local democracy. What on earth is the point of consulting if no regard is to be given to the views of the consultation? That would be a pointless exercise. If an authority has decided that it is going ahead with something and then simply goes through the motions, that would be a waste of time.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is making a good point about the contrast in clause 18 whereby the local planning authority has to be consulted but Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd and London Underground Ltd have to give their consent, so they are being given a privileged, elevated position compared with the local planning authority, to which local residents look for protection against unwanted developments.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One could argue that it should be the other way around: companies such as Network Rail are not accountable to the public in the same way as the planning authority or as responsive to the public mood. Surely we should expect the consent of the relevant local authority to be obtained.
	The point is—I am sure we all have examples of this in our constituencies—that the public have completely lost faith in consultations, and this Bill reinforces that. People are conned into thinking that statutory consultations are meaningful and that they matter and will make a difference, only to find that their views are completely ignored and overridden. People lose faith in the whole process and end up not engaging in anything, because they think it is a waste of time.
	I am afraid that this clause reinforces something that does a great disservice to our democracy: sham consultations which people go through simply because there is a statutory requirement to do so. Nobody takes notice of them, because the decision has already been made and they are a minor inconvenience. People say, “We’ve got to waste a bit of time on this consultation, go through the motions and look as if we’re doing something,” knowing full well that not a blind bit of notice will be taken of what anybody says. The only thing worse than not consulting people is to consult them and take no notice of them. I say to the sponsor of the Bill that if there is no requirement to take any notice of the consultation, do not have a consultation in the
	first place. The local authorities should be open and honest about the fact that they do not care what local residents think and plough on with what they are doing, without going through what we all know is an absolute sham which does a great disservice to public life and public bodies.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is therefore absolutely right to say through amendment 37 that consent must be obtained to ensure that the process is democratic and locally accountable. I believe that the sponsor of the Bill is, like me, a big fan of the Government’s localism agenda. It seems to me that clause 18(1) flies in the face of localism. If we really believe in localism, we should seek to gain the consent of people as low down the chain as possible and at the most local level. If the sponsor is a supporter of the localism agenda, he should want to ensure not only that local people are consulted, but that their views count. Their decision should be final in matters that affect them. It should not be possible for a much wider and greater London authority, such as Transport for London or whoever it might be, to ride roughshod over those local views.
	As a keen supporter of the Government’s localism agenda, I have to support amendment 37. I hope that, on reflection, the sponsor of the Bill will see the merits of that. That would save an awful lot of aggro later down the line. If he wants to see the effective roll-out of electric vehicles and charging points, and all the infrastructure that goes with that, he should realise that it would be done best and probably quickest if it had the consent of the local people who would be affected. The best way to stop such things in their tracks is to create the uproar that occurs when local people see that their views have not been taken into account. That will stop other people from going down the same route and will probably end up slowing down the roll-out of these things. I know that his priority in clause 18(1) is to speed up the process and ensure that the roll-out happens as fast as possible, come what may, but I think that it will slow down the process in the long run as people say that they are not satisfied with being consulted and then ignored.
	With amendment 38, we are back on to authorised people. Again, that amendment is not something that I can support. The same applies to amendment 39.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made a compelling case for amendment 40, which would leave out clause 19. He can always be relied on in debates such as this to find something that, when put under scrutiny, collapses before our very eyes. If there is one amendment in this group that shows part of the Bill to be utterly ridiculous, it is amendment 40. As he made clear, existing statute suffices. We should not want to add extra offences to the statute book. My understanding is that the Government’s agenda is to remove unnecessary offences from the statute book. Given that my hon. Friend has pointed out how unnecessary this offence is because it is covered elsewhere, this is a perfect example of where the Government can deliver on what they say and strike out an offence before it even comes into effect. I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will support the Government’s agenda of striking out unnecessary offences and show them that he means business.
	However, I think that clause 19 is worse than that, as I set out in my intervention. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that we do not need this offence, but some people may still think that we do. Whether or not people think we need the offence, the way in which the clause is drafted makes it a complete nonsense anyway, because it focuses on making somebody not guilty of the offence if they
	“had the permission of the person who operated the charging apparatus at the time”.
	Who is operating the charging apparatus at the time is neither here nor there when it comes to whether any electricity theft is taking place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has set out. Anybody could be operating the charging apparatus, but it is the person who is paying for the charging apparatus at the time who should give permission. Who is holding the baby or operating the machine at the time is irrelevant; it could be anybody. Therefore, even if an offence is necessary—I am convinced that it is not—the measure gives a get-out-of-jail card to the wrong people on the wrong premise. If my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill’s sponsor, thinks about clause 19 logically, he will realise that it is defective, that it will not achieve what he wants it to achieve, and that, at best, he needs to go back to the drawing board, although I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in believing that it should be struck out altogether.
	I worry that, if some of my hon. Friend’s amendments on facilitating a speedier roll-out are made, he would end up using up the budget provided by the Government in London and deprive other areas of the country such as Yorkshire of any available funds. In their recent document “Driving the future today: a strategy for ultra low emission vehicles in the UK”, which has only just been published, the Government say that they have funded the Office for Low Emission Vehicles to co-ordinate Government support with
	“a provision for £400 million funding to 2015”.
	The problem is that if my hon. Friend’s amendments were accepted, the Government funding could be used up quickly in London and there would be little left for elsewhere. On that additional basis, I hope he will reconsider his amendments.
	I do not intend to detain the House any longer. In summary, I hope that my hon. Friend thinks again on amendments 21 to 26; that he knocks on the head amendments 32 to 36 and amendments 38 and 39; and that he focuses his and the House’s attention on amendments 27, 28, 37 and 40—amendment 30 has already been accepted—which have an awful lot to commend them. The logic of those amendments is with my hon. Friend, and if he pressed any of them to a Division, I would enthusiastically support them. However, if he sees fit to press the other amendments, and particularly amendment 21, I am afraid that, albeit reluctantly, I would have to part company with him, which is a rare occurrence for me, and support the Bill’s sponsor. I absolutely could not support amendment 21.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his amendments, his speech and his comprehensive description of the amendments. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for explaining his position on them.
	In commencing my response, it is important to note that we are talking about the future of the motor industry in this country. I take the view that within the next couple of years the private vehicle of choice will be the electric car. It is therefore essential that electric charging points are placed around London in appropriate places for people to charge their vehicles—there is currently limited capacity—so that we can encourage people to take up this new form of transport.
	Before I respond to the amendments, it is important to note that there are two sets of provisions: one for car parks, which may be operated by the local authority, Transport for London, London Underground and other bodies; and the other for the public highway, where the provision is likely to be, although not exclusively, where meters and so on are currently provided. They will operate in tandem. The point at which the vehicle can be connected to the charging point will be provided, and the issue is then the cable connection between the charging point and the vehicle. Motor manufacturers may come up with different arrangements for that connection and we cannot pre-judge that. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley pointed out that the Mayor of London’s key strategic vision, which I support wholeheartedly, is for the roll-out of electric charging points across London in a big way. I trust that where London leads the rest of the country will follow.
	Amendment 21 would require a local authority to provide the charging apparatus in every car park it operates. In London, there are car parks with space for 10 vehicles and some with space for hundreds of vehicles. It should not be the duty of a London authority to have to provide electric charging points at every car park. London authorities are clear that they want to do this—they do not need to be told that they must do so. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to withdraw the amendment. How would the proposal work? How many points would have to be provided, and over what time scale? There is an incentive for local authorities to provide charging points in car parks, but to oblige them to do so would lead to the questions: when would it be a requirement to do so, for how many, and who would enforce it?

Philip Davies: I think I am with my hon. Friend, broadly. He said he was a big supporter of the Mayor of London’s document, “An Electric Vehicle Delivery Plan for London”. How can he guarantee that its ambitious targets will be hit? The Bill as currently drafted contains no requirement for local authorities to do this; there is only the hope that they will.

Bob Blackman: London local authorities are ambitious and keen to get on with the job. They do not need to be told that they have to do it. Some of the other amendments would make it harder for local authorities to introduce charging points.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend not think that if there is a demand for charging points, then private sector operators—for example, filling stations—will meet that demand by providing charging points in their stations?

Bob Blackman: I predict that in the coming years petrol stations will provide electric charging points, in addition to petrol. That is not to say that local authorities
	should not have a duty to consider installing charging points. Local authorities may lead; the private sector might jump ahead of them. That confirms the view that local authorities should not have to provide electric charging points when the private sector has provided them already in petrol stations. Indeed, one frequently finds petrol stations co-located with local authority car parks, for example, so why should the local authority be under an obligation to provide charging points when the private sector is providing them anyway? In my view, the market should take over.
	In some car parks across London it would be wholly inappropriate to have charging points, but amendment 22 would require local authorities to provide them, even if they were never used and never appropriate. I cannot describe every single car park in London—however tempting that may be—but that would be the position.
	Amendment 23 is another one that is a bit bizarre. It would downgrade the responsibility of local authorities to provide electric charging points on the public highway. The local authority would have a duty to provide electric charging points, but only “on a discretionary basis”. The amendment is badly drafted, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press it to a vote for that reason alone.

David Nuttall: With the greatest respect, the words “on a discretionary basis” merely refer to the erection of charging points on the highway, not in car parks. There is a distinction.

Bob Blackman: I completely accept my hon. Friend’s intervention: amendment 23 would relate to the highway. However, if a local authority was not too keen, it could place one charging point somewhere on the public highway in its borough and thereby perform its duty, which would be bizarre. I suggest that amendment 23 is not very sensible.

John Redwood: If such cars are popular, surely the private sector will provide charging points anyway. We do not have municipal petrol stations, so what is the problem?

Bob Blackman: The thrust of the amendments is to require public authorities to provide charging points; the thrust of the Bill is to allow them to provide charging points if they so wish. That is why I am urging my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press his amendments.
	Amendment 24 is particularly pernicious, because it would remove the power of local authorities to get the market—either electricity companies or other third party providers—to install charging points in car parks or on the highway, when that is something we should encourage wholeheartedly. Amendments 25, 26, 32 to 36, 38 and 39 are consequential on amendment 24, so I would urge my hon. Friend to withdraw them en bloc.
	Amendment 27 is about local authorities’ liability. If a local authority grants permission to a third party, be it an electricity company or someone in the private sector, it should be the people who have installed the charging point and operated it who take the liability. The effect of my the amendment would be to place the
	liability on to the authority, rather than on to the people who implemented the service. I would urge my hon. Friend not to press that amendment, as the liability should fall on the third party, if that is who is chosen. The other issue is that if a local authority is negligent, it cannot discharge that liability. However, the key point is about the damage and injury caused by the presence of charging apparatus, which would probably be an issue for either the third party or the individual who misused the charging point.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is making a valiant attempt to justify his argument, but this is a local authority Bill and of course local authorities are going to want legislation to be passed which states that they are not liable for anything. Surely it is the duty of this House to say that that is unacceptable and that if local authorities want to indulge in this kind of activity, they will have to accept that same kind of liability that applies to other people. Parliament cannot allow local authorities to write their own laws, willy-nilly, to exempt themselves from any liabilities.

Bob Blackman: I accept the principle behind my hon. Friend’s point, but if a local authority is negligent, it cannot discharge that liability. Let us remember that the charging points will be on the public highway and in public car parks. If someone abuses a charging point, that must be their responsibility rather than that of the local authority. Clearly, if something had been incorrectly connected or was dangerous, that would be the responsibility of the local authority, or of the third party operating the facility on its behalf, to fix it, but only if the problem were caused by the authority’s negligence.
	Let us move on to amendment 28. If someone has used their own connecting cable to plug their vehicle into a charging point on a public highway or in a public car park, the local authority should not have to accept any liability. The responsibility should lie with the individual who has plugged in their vehicle. It is an accepted provision for various electrical devices that it is up to the user to accept responsibility for the cable that they are using. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press the amendment. Amendment 29 is consequential on the outcome of amendment 28.

David Nuttall: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and his argument would be all very well were it not for the fact that a “connecting cable” is defined in clause 16(11) as being
	“any cable or wire, whether provided by the authority or otherwise, used to connect the charging apparatus to a vehicle”.
	On that basis, the connecting cable could have been provided by the local authority.

Bob Blackman: In practice, the motor manufacturers will provide cables to connect their vehicles to the electric charging points. The end of the cable that connects to the charging point will probably be common to all cables, but the end that connects to the car could be different in the case of each make of vehicle. I suggest that local authorities will therefore not provide cables, and that it will be up to the individual car owner to bring the cable with them when they want to charge their vehicle. That is why the amendments are unnecessary.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend says that he does not envisage local authorities providing the cables, so why do we need to cover a situation in which cables are provided by authorities?

Bob Blackman: In some car parks, a local authority might wish to control the process. I do not envisage cables being littered all along the public highway, but local authorities could provide cables in car parks, particularly when there is someone present to ensure that the process is operated properly. It is important to be clear about whose responsibility this would be. Indeed, there could be an issue in civil court proceedings in that regard. Amendment 31 would remove the definition of a connecting cable, which could be dangerous. The term “connecting cable” is clearly defined in the Bill and the amendment is not helpful. I urge my hon. Friend not to press it.
	Amendment 37 relates to the way in which permission is given and the consultation that should take place. We are talking about potentially 25,000 of these charging points, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, right across London—and possibly more. The amendment would require planning permission to be given for each of those charging points, at a time when I would suggest that the Government are trying to move away from the whole process of granting planning permission. We are talking about two aspects: one is the public highway; the other is council-operated car parks. Clearly, the only people who would have any concerns about council-operated car parks would be the council and the potential users of the car park. The users will not be consulted—they may use the car park, but would not have any rights over what happens in it—so only the planning authority would be consulted. Under those circumstances, the requirement to obtain planning permission seems like overkill.

Philip Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bob Blackman: Let me explain the other issue—about the public highway—first. If we ended up having to grant planning permission for all the different boxes that are going to placed alongside parking meters on the public highway, it would again lead to complete overkill. What the promoters suggest—and planning authorities in London, by the way, have given their consent to it—is that they are happy to be consulted without having to go through giving full planning permission for this to operate. They are content in that this is London local authorities dealing with London planning authorities—funnily enough, they are the same thing—so in those circumstances, it again seems like overkill.

Philip Davies: It is not the local authorities, but local residents, that I care about. My hon. Friend makes great play of how the Bill will be used in practice, but a full planning meeting will not have to be convened for every one of these requests. Rather, this is a safeguard. Most of the consents can be given in a flash by the planning authority—we do not need to go through a full planning meeting for a planning authority to give consent—but ensuring that consent has to be given provides an essential safeguard for the one or two cases that might be contentious in the local community, even though my hon. Friend might not be able to envisage them.

Bob Blackman: Having served as a councillor on a local authority for 24 years before coming to this place, I can confirm what the position would be, and it would mean the local authority having to give planning permission for every single one of these charging points. A planning application would have to be taken out—at a cost, by the way, to the local council tax payer—and those considering the planning applications would then have to advertise locally and send to every local resident in the immediate area where the charging point was to be sited an invitation to lodge an objection. I suggest that that whole process would be extremely bureaucratic and unnecessary.
	In considering implementing the charging points, any local authority worth its salt would consult individual residents as appropriate and advise them through publications or notifications what is going to take place. There would then need to be a process for finding a reasonable mix in respect of where the charging points would be. That would be preferable to requiring full-blown planning permission, which I think would be draconian, would slow the process down considerably and would lead to extremely high costs for the individuals putting in the charging points—costs that are completely unnecessary.

Christopher Chope: I take my hon. Friend’s point that we do not want to have thousands of planning applications, but is there not a middle way? Could this not be done, for example, through permitted development rights? Putting a charging apparatus on the street could be granted permitted development unless there were objections from neighbours—a form of permitted development similar to what the Government have recently brought in for extensions to domestic houses.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The key here is consulting the planning authorities on their approach to a particular area, but let me come back to the effect of the amendment. It would effectively require the local authority to go through the wholesale planning permission process. On that basis, I urge my hon. Friend not to press the amendment.
	Amendment 40 deals with the unlawful use of electric charging points. It should be borne in mind that such charging points will be in car parks run by local authorities, or on the public highway. My hon. Friend said that the issue of electricity theft was behind the amendment, but electricity theft nearly always takes place within the confines of property, and is perpetrated by people who bypass a meter or do something similar. What is needed in this instance is a provision that makes it an offence to interfere with devices that are on the public highway, or to misuse them in any way.
	It should be made clear to members of the public that if they interfere with such devices, they will face a penalty in a civil court. I believe that the penalty has been set at level 3, which currently means a fine of up to £1,000. However, I understand that the Ministry of Justice is still consulting on an increase, and that the amount could rise to £4,000. Of course, every case will be judged on its merits, and, were someone convicted of such an offence, it would be up to the court to decide what the penalty should be. That, I think, is wholly appropriate.
	The promoters are keen to ensure that there is a designated offence in this regard, and I agree with them. There are to be at least 25,000 charging points in London. Given that local authorities are already experiencing severe problems with thefts from parking meters and similar devices in London, we must make it clear to the public that interfering with charging points could be dangerous. We need a specific deterrent rather than relying on the offence of electricity theft, because interfering with these devices would not just be theft. It could, for instance, be vandalism.

Christopher Chope: Unfortunately, there is no reference to vandalism in the clause, which refers specifically to someone who
	“uses charging apparatus in contravention of a sign”.
	Someone who vandalises, abuses or interferes with such apparatus is not using it. My hon. Friend mentioned the problem of theft from parking meters. I imagine that that is dealt with not by a specific offence of stealing from a parking meter, but by the offence of theft. Surely exactly the same principle could apply to the theft of electricity, which is already an offence on the statute book.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying his purpose, but I think we should make it clear that misusing a charging point, or using it without appropriate authority, is an offence, and that a penalty will be imposed if someone is convicted of such an offence. That is what the promoters want, and I strongly support it.
	I urge my hon. Friend not to press his amendment to a vote. It is clear that the offence of electricity theft would not necessarily cover all aspects of unauthorised use of a charging point. Clause 19 makes that a specific offence, and makes it clear both to members of the public and to the courts what the penalties would be. I think that removing it would constitute a very dangerous precedent, because local authorities would have to use some other part of the law to enforce the rules. Given that there is to be a new basis for the provision and charging of private vehicles, we need sensible measures to deal with unauthorised use of the new devices.
	Let me say on behalf of the promoters that we are happy to accept amendment 30. I urge my hon. Friend not to press the remaining amendments, but if he chooses to do so, we will oppose them.

David Nuttall: It is, as always, a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I thank him for the good-natured way in which he has steered this Bill through a number of sittings on the Floor of the House, and in particular for the very helpful way he has steered through these amendments, all of which relate to part 5 of the Bill dealing with charging points for electric vehicles. They were so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) at the outset of this brief debate.
	This whole issue is important on a variety of levels and for a variety of reasons, but particularly because it addresses a growth area. As my hon. Friend made clear in his opening remarks, this is an area that will receive a great deal of attention in the months and years ahead. The sorts of issues we have debated this evening will be debated at length in the years to come and some of the
	problems we have identified will be applicable not only to London, but throughout the country, and I regard this Bill as a blueprint for what will follow.
	I wonder if it might have been better for this whole issue of charging points for electric vehicles to have been dealt with on a national basis so that we could deal with it across the nation, with a single set of rules and regulations, rather than just dealing with it, as this Bill does, on a piecemeal basis for London alone.
	What I call the first sub-group of amendments deals with the provision of charging apparatus within car parks and on the public highway. Essentially, the issue is this: who should have the responsibility for providing these charging points? Should it be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) suggested, purely the private sector, or should it be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would have it in these amendments, purely the local authorities, or should there be a mix of the two?
	If the amendments are agreed to, essentially a monopoly would be created for the London local authorities, in the sense that the permissive nature of clause 16(1) which says they
	“may provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles”
	would be changed, and the provision would state they “shall” do those things. Under clause 16(1)(a) they would be required to provide those charging points in every single “public off-street car park” and under subsection (b), on a discretionary basis, on the
	“highway for which they are responsible as highway authority.”
	In my view that goes way too far.
	On this amendment and consequential amendments, I am entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the promoters of the Bill in that I think the London local authorities should not be forced to provide these charging points. This part of the Bill is entirely superfluous. Given the Localism Act 2011, I question whether there is a need for specific provisions to give London local authorities the power to provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles. Under the general power that all local authorities were granted under that Act, they may already have these powers, should they choose to investigate the matter and make use of them.
	This should be left for the market to decide, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. We are talking about providing the energy to power vehicles. Nobody has ever suggested that local authorities should be responsible for providing diesel or petrol and setting up their own petrol stations, so why does this Bill contemplate giving them the power to provide charging points for electric vehicles? Why the difference? At the start of the 20th century were our forebears in this place suggesting that the local authorities of the day set up petrol stations for the newly invented combustion engine? I suggest that they were not. On that basis, I am suspicious about amendment 21 and the two consequential amendments, 22 and 23. I have to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that if they are pushed to a vote, I would vote against them.
	Amendment 24 would remove clause 16(2), which gives local authorities the power to provide for someone else to operate these charging points, and would mean,
	in effect, the nationalisation of this scheme. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch tabled this amendment, as it goes against what I would have thought were his normal instincts in these matters. Nevertheless, it has been tabled and we must consider it. It has a number of consequential amendments, all relating to “authorised persons”. Reference has been made to those, so, for speed of debate, I will not go through them again. The point is: if London local authorities are going to be given this power, it is entirely fair and reasonable that they should have permission to allow another authorised person, if they so wish, to do this work on their behalf and operate these charging points.
	The next amendments deal with the issue of liability for these charging points, and we have heard a number of arguments tonight as to where that responsibility should lie. I can only assume that the objective of subsection (7), which would be removed if amendment 27 were accepted, is to try to absolve local authorities of responsibility. There can be no other reason for it. If they were not negligent, they would not have anything to fear; there would be no problem. I am suspicious about why the subsection is in the Bill at all and I agree entirely with amendment 27, which I would support if it were pressed to a Division later this evening.
	I would also support amendment 28, which deals with the determination of liability for someone using one of these charging points. The Bill states:
	“For the purposes of determining, in any proceedings in a court of civil jurisdiction, who is liable for injury, damage or loss resulting from the presence on a highway or public off-street car park of a connecting cable at or near charging apparatus provided under this section, it shall be presumed that the person in charge of the relevant vehicle at the relevant time had responsibility for and control of the cable.”
	In other words, the subsection is very serious, in that it makes a presumption that a charged person accused of having committed an offence under the Bill would find it difficult to rebut. There would be a statutory presumption that they were at fault, that they had responsibility for and control of the cable and that they were responsible for any injury, damage or loss resulting from the cable being there.
	As has been evident from this evening’s debate, there is some lack of clarity about exactly what a connecting cable is and whether, for example, it would be connected to the charging point or the car. I suspect that that is the root cause of the confusion. I can well understand local authorities not wanting to be liable for connecting cables that come from the car but, as I tried to point out earlier, that is not the definition in subsection (11). “Connecting cable” is specifically defined as
	“any cable…whether provided by the authority or otherwise, used to connect the charging apparatus to a vehicle and that is not permanently attached to the charging apparatus”.
	There is some confusion and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for drawing it to the attention of the House. I hope that his amendments go some way towards rectifying the problem.
	The next amendments are all consequential on the removal of the words “authorised person”, so I will not deal with them.
	Let me turn now to amendment 37, which replaces the word “consulted” in line two of clause 18 with the words “obtained the consent of”. Clearly, that is an absolutely crucial change. There is no point in merely consulting another authority, and the much more clear requirement that the consent of the other planning authorities is obtained makes much more sense. For that reason, I have no difficulty in supporting that amendment.
	As we have heard, the Bill makes no provision for consulting other car park users. It has been suggested that there would be no need for such consultation, but I disagree, because car parks are often full to capacity and if certain sections of a car park are to be cordoned off for use as charging spaces, that will affect other car park users. I could well envisage many disgruntled people who are trying to park driving past a lot of empty spaces that have been kept for use only as charging bays. I fear that the problem in practice will not be people making illegal use of the electricity, which I shall deal with when I speak to amendment 40, but people parking their petrol and diesel vehicles in spaces provided for electrical charging points, yet that is not covered by the Bill. Perhaps that problem has not been thought about, but it represents a real risk, so it would be sensible at least to carry out consultation with other users.
	If I had to pick only one of the many amendments in the group on which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch should test the will of the House, it would be amendment 40. The amendment is simple, given that it would remove clause 19, which will create the new offence of the unlawful use of a charging point. The clause states that anyone found guilty of that offence would be
	“liable on a summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3”,
	which is presently £1,000, but might shortly increase to £4,000. I accept that such a deterrent would be sufficient to put anyone off making unlawful use of a charging point, but rather than putting people off, why not encourage them to use the points? Why not say, “Here is an electric charging point, so if you want to use it, do so”? When one pays for fuel at the pump with a credit card, after putting in one’s card and entering the number, a specific amount of fuel—usually up to £99—can be drawn down. There might be a technical reason, but why could we not do the same for electricity? Why could not people enter their card and code so that electricity up to a given amount could be dispensed? That ought to be the way forward because we then would not need to create an additional offence. That explains my rationale for supporting amendment 40, leaving aside the other good arguments that we have already heard, with which I entirely concur.
	There is no need to create this new offence when it would already be an offence to damage or vandalise a charging point, as that would be covered by criminal damage. In any event, there is no specific reference in clause 19, as it refers to using the apparatus
	“for any purpose other than charging a vehicle”.
	I can only imagine what other uses it might be put to—perhaps charging a mobile phone or other equipment, such as a computer or laptop. Who knows what the charging points will be used for. Local authorities could use them as a money-making opportunity if they thought wider than vehicles.
	Those are my brief thoughts on this group of amendments. The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for bringing the amendments before us today, not least because amendment 30 has been accepted by the promoters of the Bill. This is not the first amendment that has been accepted, so I am grateful to the promoters for having listened carefully to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend and having paid due attention to his arguments. If I may make a closing bid, I think that of all the amendments, amendment 40 is the one that should be put to the vote. If it is, I can assure my hon. Friend of my support.

Christopher Chope: This is a notable debate for a number of reasons, but one is that we have not heard from either the Minister or the official Opposition spokesman, yet we understand that the development of a network of charging points for electric vehicles is a key policy of both the Government and the Opposition. The way of implementing such a policy in London is what we have been discussing for the past couple of hours. I find it extraordinary, if not disturbing, that we have not heard from the Minister in response to the genuine questions raised during the debate.
	It is invidious to make contrasts but I am going to do so. The way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has dealt with the debate is first class. The whole purpose of scrutiny in the House is for questions to be asked and answers to be given, and for that to be done in a civilised way. It may well be that people have misunderstood the meaning of the Bill. They may have made nonsense of an amendment, but the only way of testing that process is through a civilized exchange across the Floor of the House.
	My hon. Friend has shown during today’s proceedings and in previous discussion of the Bill that if the Government are interested in bringing forward Ministers who are good at responding to debates, taking seriously the process of scrutiny and answering the questions, my hon. Friend is a model Minister in waiting. He has shown that he grasps the whole purpose of our Parliament, which is to scrutinise the Executive, and the purpose of the Executive is to respond to that scrutiny.
	Having come in for a bit of stick tonight in relation to some of the amendments in the group, I remind the House that it is a long-standing convention that if one tables an amendment and it encounters quite a lot of opposition, one then downgrades one’s amendment by saying, “Well, after all, it is only a probing amendment.” By force of argument, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, and from my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Bury North, I have been forced to downgrade my lead amendment to a probing amendment. However, it has been very effective in probing and getting out of the promoters what they have in mind and why that amendment is ill-conceived, like many of the others that go with it. Had the Minister responded, I might well have been pushed back into a more aggressive mode and become a little more stubborn.
	To sum up the debate, leaving aside those amendments that were clearly probing, there is still disagreement between my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East
	and the three of us who have spoken from the Back Benches in relation to amendment 37, which relates to clause 18, and amendment 40, which relates to clause 19. He opposes amendment 37 on the basis that it would be demanding to expect local authorities to deal with potentially 25,000 planning applications, as we are talking about 25,000 charging points across London, and I conceded that that is correct.
	On the other hand, I envisage enormous difficulties if the 25,000 charging points are installed in places where local residents do not want them to be. They are also a potential nuisance, because we do not yet know how much noise they will generate. Will they be as loud as a fridge freezer at night, or louder? We do not know how much of a nuisance vehicles coming to charging points will be, or how long the process will take. When there is a shortage of charging points, will there be queues of vehicles waiting to use them, and might that obstruct the streets? There are many big issues that could affect London residents.
	Although clause 18 refers to consulting, it makes no reference to meaningful consultation or to local authorities having to listen to the views of residents. Without the wording being changed, all we can say is that if local authorities do not listen to the views of their residents on this, the whole means of bringing forward charging points to facilitate the expansion of electric vehicles in London will be inhibited and could become very unpopular. That is one of the concerns referred to during the debate. As I recall, clause 18 also refers to consent having to be obtained from Network Rail and London Underground, which is a result of the petitions that those organisations put in against the Bill. It is a pity that residents did not petition, as they might have been able to obtain a similar concession.
	Amendment 40 would delete clause 19. If we are talking about creating new criminal offences, we need to be very clear that they are needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, in defending the Bill’s position, did his valiant best. He referred to the problem that many local authorities already have with theft from parking meters, but he did not suggest that that should be subject to a separate offence, because it is already covered by the Theft Act. He also said that he did not believe that the issue of interfering with a charging apparatus could be ignored when drafting a Bill such as this. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North made clear, that would probably be an offence of criminal damage. Do we need a new criminal offence under clause 19? The wording of the clause would not even cover interference, as it specifically refers to the use of
	“charging apparatus in contravention of a sign displayed”.
	We do not yet know, because the technology and designs are still being developed, whether the charging apparatus will be the kind into which an electric kettle can be plugged—a person might be able to have their tea. Surely, however, it is sensible to legislate on the basis that there is already a clear offence of theft of electricity. Anybody who uses the apparatus without authority will be stealing the electricity. That is clear. If they interfere with or vandalise the charging apparatus, they will be guilty of criminal damage. There is no need for the offence in clause 19; it would just litter the statute book, and we do not want to create more criminal offences.
	We then come to the additional point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who said that clause 19(2) is badly drafted and makes it look as though we were dealing with the wrong person from whom permission would need to be obtained to establish a defence. That is a subsidiary argument against clause 19.

David Nuttall: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is completing his summary. Is he as surprised as I am that, notwithstanding the courteous and careful way in which the amendments have been considered, only one has been accepted?

Christopher Chope: Having one amendment accepted is more than was achieved during the earlier business—today, yesterday and the day before yesterday, with all the might of the Opposition forces against the Government. I am grateful for small mercies. In fact, two amendments will have been accepted this evening, and that is pretty good. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East should be made a Minister; perhaps I might have a role in the official Opposition. We might be able to make more progress.
	I intend to withdraw amendment 21, move amendment 30 formally so that it can be accepted by the House and test the opinion of the House on amendment 40. It would be a pity if those who have listened so attentively to this debate were deprived of the opportunity of participating in a vote before we reach the appointed time.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment made: 30—(Mr Chope.)

Clause 19
	 — 
	Offence of unlawful use of charging point

Amendment proposed: 40—(Mr Chope.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 4, Noes 36.

Question accordingly negatived.
	More than three hours having elapsed since the start of proceedings, the business was interrupted (Order, 3 September).
	Bill to be read a Third time tomorrow.

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Bill to be read a Second time on Tuesday 8 October.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Legal Aid and Advice

That the draft Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 20 May, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Defence

That the draft Armed Forces (Alcohol Limits for Prescribed Safety-Critical Duties) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 1 July, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.— (Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

National Health Service

That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 5 July, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Senior Courts

That the draft Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Beecroft Road Car Park Redevelopment

Aidan Burley: I have great pleasure in presenting this petition that calls on Labour-led Cannock Chase district council to listen to the people it represents and to scrap its controversial proposal to redevelop Beecroft road car park into a shopping and leisure complex.
	The petition, along with a petition on similar terms, has been signed by more than 2,600 of my constituents and the constituents of neighbouring colleagues—a number that is far higher than the mere 963 respondents to the councils narrow consultation. I pay tribute to Allport Action Alliance and, in particular, to Helen and Robert Blaikie for all their hard work in collecting signatures and standing up against these horrendous plans, which would see their family homes demolished for this vanity project of the council.
	Local residents are already suffering from falling house prices due to the ongoing uncertainty. I strongly believe that it is unfair and unreasonable to leave local people worried about the future of their homes. No interest has been shown in the site by retailers or developers. Now is the time for the Labour council publicly and formally to scrap its proposal.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Cannock Chase,
	Declares that the Petitioners do not support Cannock Chase District Council’s proposal to redevelop Beecroft Road Car Park for shopping and leisure; further that the Petitioners believe that the existing town centre needs support and the District Council should focus on this instead with a more creative approach to existing empty units; further that any proposals which risk the demolition of Allport Road homes are unfair to residents and should not be pursued; and that the present car parking space is necessary for visitors to the town centre and Cannock Hospital, and it should not be reduced.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to intervene in Cannock Chase Council’s planning for this redevelopment.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001222]

PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND (PORTON DOWN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.)

John Glen: The purpose of this debate is to seek an update from the Minister on the discussions on the future of Porton Down in my constituency. Since the debate I called in June 2010, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) responded, I have had numerous interactions with Public Health England, formerly the Health Protection Agency, about the future of the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, which is located at Porton.
	Porton Down is a world leader in high-quality microbiological research and testing, playing a vital role in preparing, co-ordinating and manufacturing responses to health care emergencies. It is at the forefront of the UK’s research into infectious diseases, holds four international culture collections and has an international reputation as a centre of excellence.
	Public Health England’s site at Porton Down is therefore unique. It possesses two distinct world class capabilities: first, the translational research facility, which partners with academia, international agencies and companies seeking specialist expertise in turning research concepts into tangible products; and secondly, the production, development and manufacturing capability, which represents about a third of current operations. It is important to emphasise that, although the facilities are separate, their co-location means they work closely together and ensures that there is a cohesive resource to support the Government in the event of a national microbiological emergency.
	Immediately adjacent to Public Health England’s facilities at Porton are the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory’s new multi-million pound headquarters. Some DSTL functions are complementary and contribute to the overall emergency response capability. Indeed, originally, the PHE and DSTL sites worked under the same banner. They continue to work closely together. That DSTL chose recently to relocate its headquarters to Porton Down as a result of its own estate consolidation was a vote of confidence, and a demonstration of the value that the Ministry of Defence attaches to being close to the CEPR.
	As was acknowledged in the previous debate three years ago, the laboratory facilities are in need of modernisation, both because of wear and tear and in order to reflect the increased demands placed on Porton owing to the expanded responsibilities of Public Health England. It was to address those problems that Project Chrysalis was created in 2008 under my predecessor. The project was designed to investigate the cost of refurbishment and subsequently to explore the possibility of moving some of Porton’s facilities to a new site in Harlow, where they would be consolidated with other laboratory sites in the Public Health England portfolio.
	In theory, this would create a single science hub for Public Health England. In practice, the complexity of a move has generated as many questions as it answers. The geographical distance between the various PHE sites has never been raised as an issue before. This is because there are few functional dependencies between the different agencies, so I still maintain that the assumed
	advantage of geographical proximity will not, by itself, validate the business case for a move. However, there is a natural synergy between the research conducted at DSTL and CEPR. A single hub proposal also potentially loses the advantage of a site surrounded by Ministry of Defence land, which minimises the risks of working with animals and the most dangerous diseases in the world.
	I was therefore relieved when, in August 2012, the decision was made to delay the conclusions of Project Chrysalis because the Treasury believed that considerably more work needed to be done on the outline business case to demonstrate value for money. At this point, Public Health England also commissioned a review by Professor George Griffin to look at whether the concept of a single science hub was worthy of further investigation. He concluded that it was, and in April this year Public Health England began a further review into how the business case fits with its vision for the future of its facilities overall. Running in parallel with this review, I understand that the Cabinet Office has recently instigated a separate examination of the future of the development and production facilities at Porton. It is these two reviews that have prompted me to seek this second debate today.
	Although I fully accept that it is not for me to dictate the outcome of any studies examining the options for Porton Down, it is imperative that decisions are made on the basis of the evidence and have the broadest possible terms of reference. My concern is two strategic projects are now under way, both of which have implications for the wider scientific infrastructure of the UK, and we must get those decisions right.
	The first piece of work, now termed the single science hub, is essentially examining the business case for a consolidated PHE facility in Harlow. Public Health England, as an arm’s length body of the Department of Health, has a specific core mission to secure and improve the health of the population. From that perspective, it is understandable that the wider commercial activities around translational research may not be deemed integral to PHE’s core purposes. However, from a UK plc point of view, they are critical for the growth of the life sciences industry in the UK. Some of the projects being carried out by this team include the largest pre-clinical TB vaccine evaluation in Europe, and supporting the US human health services with vaccine development. I have no wish to see the UK’s expertise dispersed across the globe in future due to the fact that it conceivably exists within PHE but has ended up under the umbrella of a Government Department with a narrower mission, where the skills could be seen as no longer entirely fitting.
	The crux of the issue is that Porton’s complexity means all its combined capabilities do not sit comfortably with one Government Department or agency. The work of translational research scientists is perhaps more in keeping with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills agenda to drive growth in the life sciences industry, while other work, in partnership with DSTL, is of interest to the Ministry of Defence. Existing departmental delineations of responsibility must not inhibit the right decisions about the future of translational research being made.
	The second piece of work under way is confined to the potential of the production and development facilities alone. It might be suggested that Public Health England
	could remove the need for investment in refurbished facilities by entering into partnership arrangements or other commercial propositions, but that could entail the UK losing its sovereign capability to produce vaccines in a biological emergency. Key public functions must be safeguarded, including the only anthrax vaccine licence in Europe, as well as the emergency response training undertaken across the public and private sectors. I recognise the financial options for the production and development facilities, but their relationship with translational research scientists is an operating reality of what currently goes on at Porton and is of wider value to the UK economy. They do not just generate new products for market; they also maximise the potential receipts from the development of new ideas.
	Exploring the future of production and development separately means that there is a risk that this valuable translational research capability could be lost to the UK, because its role is not about short-term commercial receipts, but about generating value for UK plc through high-level research that requires a degree of investment and flexible, innovative collaboration with other bodies and scientists abroad. The partnership between translational scientists and co-located production and development colleagues must therefore be fully analysed. Any recommendations for the future must neither damage the wealth creation potential of scientists at Porton nor put at risk the public health protection capabilities that currently reside there. Critically, the ongoing discussions must consult fully the expert staff on the ground, to get an accurate reflection of their roles, whom they interact with internationally and the ideas they have to catalyse Porton’s development.
	I fully understand the logic that leads some to believe that it makes sense in principle to aim for a single science hub—as I note the project has stealthily been renamed—to create a single site of expertise for PHE. It is a neat concept on paper, but as I have stressed for the past three years, Porton Down is a unique strategic asset for the UK, and there is little sense in duplicating capability that exists elsewhere across government in a time of austerity. The need for new containment level 4 facilities at Porton could be reduced if DSTL’s similar facilities next door could be shared—something that I know DSTL is willing to consider.
	My suggestion this evening, as I described in a slightly different way three years ago, is to look at a new model of ownership, based on the principle that stronger partnerships are possible between the public and private sectors without compromising important public health requirements. Porton has become a globally recognised brand that generates £18 million of royalty revenues every year through its high-quality research licences and products. It generates five times more external income than it receives in core funding from PHE and remains a pioneering example of the best public sector expertise generating growth for UK plc. The Government should therefore consider ways to capitalise on this.
	I urge the Minister to examine the potential of a public-private partnership, which would give scientists at Porton the ability to leverage new facilities through their royalty income stream, as they themselves have suggested. Such a role would also enable Porton to operate more strategically, providing a cost-effective way to protect the UK’s microbiological emergency
	response capabilities. In peacetime, it would operate as a national translational research facility, with a key role in delivering the Government’s life sciences strategy. This overall vision represents a commercialisation of the facility’s scientific potential, while protecting its public role in emergencies.
	As the Department of Health’s antimicrobial resistance strategy set out yesterday,
	“the relevant Research Councils, industry and third sector should work together to establish a range of new mechanisms to facilitate greater collaborative working”.
	Porton is one of the best-placed sites in the country to develop
	“coalitions between academia and biopharmaceutical companies”
	and has a proven track record of doing so. Without doubt, the scientists at Porton Down are world class. A unique relationship exists in the Wessex Life Sciences Cluster, which includes PHE and DSTL’s capabilities, alongside Salisbury district hospital, Wessex Genetics and the university of Southampton. This makes it ideally located to work with others and to take products from concept to market, as the Department of Health strategy sets out. The strategy goes on to state that the Department of Health wants to
	“stimulate the development of new antibiotics, rapid diagnostics and novel therapies”
	by
	“ensuring excellent science is developed and has a clear route for translation”.
	That is precisely what Porton does, and this emphasises why the translational facilities must be supported in the best possible way.
	Perhaps the strongest indicator of Porton’s potential for a PPP is the proposed regional growth fund investment of £8 million in a new science park. This will provide much-needed space for emerging bioscience enterprises in an industry that generated £1 billion for the UK last year. Crucially, it will also create opportunities for spin-out companies based on products conceived at Porton, which have previously moved away from the site due to lack of space.
	I do not have a rigid view of what the future should look like, but it is important that Porton’s fate should not be decided on the basis of any short-term capital receipts through the incentive of removing refurbishment liabilities or an overriding desire to consolidate Public Health England’s estate. It is clear that there is no silver bullet solution involving relocation to Harlow or the straightforward commercialisation of the production and development facilities. It is critical that any decisions should be in the best interests of the preservation of public health in this country as well as of the proven commercial potential of translational research scientists, even if that necessitates a realignment of organisational boundaries within the agencies of Government.

Anna Soubry: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this debate. I also thank him for helpfully providing me and my officials with advance details of his speech. That has been of great assistance to us, because it enables us to provide answers to some of his questions and to address the many points that he has quite
	properly raised on behalf of the people who work at Porton and of his constituents and others who are interested in the future of the facility. I know that he is an active supporter of the work of Public Health England at Porton, and that he has worked tirelessly with Wiltshire county council and others to create a science park there. I will spend a few minutes outlining the work that Public Health England is doing on behalf of the Government to secure high-quality facilities for public health. I shall then try to respond to the points that my hon. Friend has quite properly raised.
	The Government created Public Health England just a few months ago, in April 2013, with the aim of creating a national expert body charged with protecting and improving the public’s health and reducing health inequalities. The services provided at Porton are essential to the work of PHE in protecting the nation’s health and preventing disease. Porton provides some of the most specialist and high-technology microbiology facilities in the country. However, the main building at PHE Porton, as it is now known, was built 60 years ago, and the Government are committed to replacing those ageing facilities with modern state-of-the-art buildings through the submission of a revised business case some time next year.
	I should add that the idea of consolidating health protection facilities on a single site to make best use of scarce skills from both Colindale and Porton is not new. What is new is the vision to develop a national centre with a much broader remit, reflecting the wider purpose of PHE to improve the public’s health and to reduce health inequalities. I understand that senior staff from PHE have met my hon. Friend about this work, as he described, and they have promised to meet him again and to engage with other interested bodies, including the county council
	Let me address some of the points that my hon. Friend raised. The Government are committed to retaining some public health facilities at Porton as part of the planned science park. I know that the chief executive of Public Health England wrote a letter of support for the science park earlier this year at my hon. Friend’s request. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital to maximise the commercial potential of the services at Porton—unfortunately, that probably has not been done for some time, and the Government are absolutely committed to doing it. PHE is fully committed, too, as
	part of the programme on which my hon. Friend has also been briefed, and this opportunity can be grasped now. The other review is about the 15 to 20-year future for a wider range of services, currently not only at Porton, but at Colindale and elsewhere.
	My hon. Friend mentions the distance between sites. The case for change that was submitted in 2011 focused on the additional benefits that can result from co-locating services on a single site. The position is not dangerous now, but there are significant opportunities for new scientific ventures and collaborations from a new national centre.
	My hon. Friend asks why PHE does not simply share high-containment facilities with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. We need to be clear that although PHE and DSTL will continue to collaborate closely, public health needs dedicated high-containment facilities to ensure that public health work can proceed in the event of the DSTL facilities being fully occupied. This will provide resilience if DSTL’s facilities are closed for any reason.
	In conclusion, the Government have asked PHE to lead work on the creation of state-of-the-art facilities to protect the public’s health and to prevent disease. There is a well-established programme in place, overseen by the Department of Health and the Government’s Major Projects Authority.
	It is really important to finish by stressing that Ministers have yet to make a final decision on how best to create future facilities for national public health science. PHE is on track to complete the business case for a ministerial decision by September 2014.
	I hope that I have answered all the points so properly raised by my hon. Friend. If I have not answered any, he can be quite sure that I will respond in the normal manner by way of letter. My door is always open, and it would be a pleasure to meet him on any occasion to discuss this matter further and to provide any further assurances that I can to him and, perhaps most importantly, to the staff at Porton, who we would all agree do an outstanding job.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.